North Dakota Wheat Growers Asso. v. Moore

8 Citing cases

  1. Puhr v. Novak (In re Estate of Shubert)

    2013 N.D. 215 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 16 times

    Whether the matter in controversy is one of great public interest and involves the authority and power of public officials is the test this court has historically employed in resolving mootness issues. See North Dakota Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Moore, 52 N.D. 904, 204 N.W. 834 Syllabus 2 (1925); State v. Stutsman, 24 N.D. 68, 139 N.W. 83 Syllabus 1 (1912). We adapted as an alternate test the United States Supreme Court's doctrine of “capable of repetition, yet evading review” in Forum Publishing Co. v. City of Fargo, 391 N.W.2d 169, 170 (N.D.1986).

  2. State v. Liberty Nat. Bank and Trust Co.

    427 N.W.2d 307 (N.D. 1988)   Cited 18 times
    In State v. Liberty National Bank and Trust Co., 427 N.W.2d 307, 308 (N.D. 1988), we recently observed that we "will not dismiss an appeal as moot where the matter in controversy is one of great public interest and involves the authority and power of public officials, or where the matter is `"capable of repetition, yet evading review.

    Although Matter of Prettyman, 410 N.W.2d 533, 536 (N.D. 1987), might indicate that the factors of "great public interest," "authority and power of public officials," and "capable of repetition, yet evading review" must each be established before we will deem an appeal not moot, these factors are components of two separate tests for determing whether we will treat a case as moot. Whether the matter in controversy is one of great public interest and involves the authority and power of public officials is the test this court has historically employed in resolving mootness issues. See North Dakota Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Moore, 52 N.D. 904, 204 N.W. 834 Syllabus 2 (1925); State v. Stutsman, 24 N.D. 68, 139 N.W. 83 Syllabus 1 (1912). We adopted as an alternate test the United States Supreme Court's doctrine of "capable of repetition, yet evading review" in Forum Publishing Co. v. City of Fargo, 391 N.W.2d 169, 170 (N.D. 1986).

  3. Forum Pub. Co. v. City of Fargo

    391 N.W.2d 169 (N.D. 1986)   Cited 29 times
    Addressing what constitutes a public record

    '" In North Dakota Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Moore, 52 N.D. 904, 204 N.W. 834 (1925), we stated that if the matter in controversy appears to be one of great public interest and involves the authority and power of public officials, the appeal will not be dismissed as moot. The United States Supreme Court has said that a case is not moot if the controversy is "capable of repetition, yet evading review."

  4. State v. Katsoulis

    148 N.W.2d 269 (N.D. 1967)

    [Citations omitted.] North Dakota Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Moore, 52 N.D. 904, 204 N.W. 834, 835. We do therefore quash the writ of certiorari previously issued by this court and terminate the accompanying injunction.

  5. State v. Gussner

    92 N.W.2d 65 (N.D. 1958)   Cited 7 times

    "The judicial power vested in the courts of North Dakota, extends only to the determination of actual controversies properly before the court, and does not authorize a court to act in an advisory capacity and to give its opinion on moot questions or abstract propositions." See also Borchard Declaratory Judgments, Second Edition, p. 81; State ex rel. Anderson v. Sieg, 63 N.D. 724, 249 N.W. 714; North Dakota Wheat Growers Association v. Moore, 52 N.D. 904, 204 N.W. 834; Schwarz v. Thoreson, 70 N.D. 552, 296 N.W. 420; Langer v. State, 69 N.D. 129, 284 N.W. 238; Ginakes v. Johnson, 75 N.D. 164, 26 N.W.2d 368; Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 72 N.D. 359, 7 N.W.2d 438; Brace v. Steele County, 77 N.D. 276, 42 N.W.2d 672. Since it is not within our power to render advisory opinions we cannot consider any of the questions raised on this appeal, or the appropriateness of the selected remedy.

  6. Hart v. Bye

    86 N.W.2d 635 (N.D. 1957)   Cited 18 times
    In Hart v. Bye, 86 N.W.2d 635 (N.D. 1957), "public interest" is defined to mean "something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."

    In O'Laughlin v. Carlson, 30 N.D. 213, 152 N.W. 675, it was held that the constitutionality of a statute relating to the elections and terms of County Commissioners should be determined, even though the controversy had become moot; a like holding appears in State ex rel. Dakota Trust Co. v. Stutsman, 24 N.D. 68, 139 N.W. 83, with reference to the power and authority of the R. R. Commissioners to regulate public utilities such as public warehouses. But a decision on the merits was denied in State ex rel. Anderson v. Sieg, 63 N.D. 724, 249 N.W. 714, on a question relating to whether or not a statute relating to the recall of city officials was repealed, and in North Dakota Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Moore, 52 N.D. 904, 204 N.W. 834, on matters relating to the internal affairs of a private corporation; and in Dakota Coal Company v. Fraser, 8 Cir., 267 F. 130, a review was denied even though the controversy related to the rights of the State Adjutant General to seize private property, where it was argued a decision would act as a guide in like controversies. In State ex rel. Freeling v. Lyon, 63 Okla. 285, 165 P. 419, 420, the following statement is made: "We understand `public interest' to mean more than mere curiosity; it means something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as the interest of the particular localities which may be affected by the matter in question."

  7. State ex Rel. Burke County Farmers Press v. Magedanz

    250 N.W. 336 (N.D. 1933)   Cited 4 times

    Where, however, the matter in controversy appears to be one of great public interest and involves the authority and power of public officials, the appeal will not be ignored as a moot question. State ex rel. Dakota Trust Co. v. Stutsman, 24 N.D. 68, 139 N.W. 83, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 771; North Dakota Wheat Growers Asso. v. Moore, 52 N.D. 904, 204 N.W. 834. H.A. Hanson and Gordon Hanson, for respondents.

  8. State ex rel. Anderson v. Sieg

    63 N.D. 724 (N.D. 1933)   Cited 10 times

    We do not say that under no circumstances will this court determine a moot question. North Dakota Wheat Growers' Asso. v. Moore, 52 N.D. 905, 204 N.W. 834, we set forth under what circumstances a moot question may be determined. We do not consider that this case comes within any of the classes mentioned therein.