Cited by

“Moreover, [appellate courts] do[] not issue advisory opinions, nor decide cases merely to establish precedent.”

Appellate courts “decide only actual controversies,” and, “[i]f the court is unable to grant effectual relief, the issue raised is deemed to be moot resulting in dismissal of the appeal.” (explaining that appellate courts “will dismiss an appeal as moot when a decision on the merits is no longer necessary or an award of effective relief is no longer possible” (quotation omitted)).

(“[A court] must consider the mootness question even if ignored by the parties.”).

do not ‘decide cases merely to establish precedent.’” 3 Schowalter v. State , ().

We do not issue opin ions “merely to establish precedent.” Schowalter v. State , ( 6 (Minn. 1989)).

(“As a constitutional prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction, we must consider the mootness question even if ignored by the parties.”).

We consider the question of mootness, “[ a]s a constitutional prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction.”

12 guidance for future cases, appellate courts do “not issue advisory opinions, nor decide cases merely to establish precedent.”

We presume that statutes are constitutional, and the party challenging the constitutionality of the statute “has the onus of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates a claimed right.”

See In re Matter of Schmidt , -30 (Minn. 1989) (citing Minn. Stat. § 253B.03, subd.

(stating that issues are dismissed as moot “[i]f the court is unable to grant effectual relief.”).

It is well established that a court “will decide only actual controversies.”

Despite the failure to brief this issue, we nonetheless address it because “[a]s a constitutional prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction, we must consider the mootness question even if ignored by the parties.”

Res., (explaining that the court must consider the issue of mootness, because it is a constitutional prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdic tion, even if not briefed by the parties).

In any case, we can raise a question of our jurisdiction on our own, In re Schmidt , , 826 (Minn. 1989), and in our order of May 21, 2018, we did so.

In re Schmidt , , 826 (Minn. 1989).

(observing that when an appellate court is unable to grant relief, the issue is moot).

“If the court is unable to grant effectual relief, the issue raised is deemed to be moot resulting in dismissal of the appeal.”

Lack of mootness is “a constitutional prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction,” and appellate courts “must consider the mootness question even if ignored by the parties.”

(observing that when we are unable to grant relief, the issue raised is deemed moot).

If the court is unable to grant effectual relief, the issue raised is deemed to be moot resulting in dismissal of the appeal.”

But we may consider a moot issue when “the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review,” (quotation omitted), “because the challenged actions were too short in duration to be fully litigated before they were rendered moot,” Limmer, d at 839.

We have held that if we *198 are “unable to grant effectual relief, the issue raised is deemed to be moot resulting in dismissal of the appeal.”

But we do not issue advisory opinions and we do not “decide cases merely to establish precedent.” (noting that we “only decide actual controversies”); In re Application of the Senate, 10 Minn. 78 ( Gil.