Specifically, the cases are unclear with respect to whether a case will be moot unless the litigants satisfy all the factors or whether some factors are more significant than others in the determination of mootness. In Waterbury Hospital v. Connecticut Health Care Associates, 186 Conn. 247, 253 n. 5, 440 A.2d 310 (1982), for example, we explained that satisfaction of the first prong of Delevieleuse โ that the case was "capable of repetition, yet evading review" โ "was not, in and of itself, a justification for reviewing an admittedly moot case but was merely one factor to be considered when faced with a potentially moot matter." We then listed other factors to be considered, including: "(1) the public importance of the question presented; (2) whether an ongoing program of the state's penal or civil system is affected; and (3) whether the appellant himself could be similarly affected in the future.
"Connecticut courts have rejected injunctive remedies on the ground of mootness where the issue before the court has been resolved or has lost its significance because of intervening circumstances. See Waterbury Hospital v. Connecticut Health Care Associates, 186 Conn. 247, 249-52, 440 A.2d 310 (1982) (court dismissed as moot plaintiff's request for injunctive relief to restrain picketing during strike because strike and picketing had ended while appeal was pending); Daley v. Gaitor, 16 Conn. App. 379, 381 n. 2, 547 A.2d 1375 (court dismissed as moot plaintiff's request to enjoin city of Hartford from administering promotional examination to police officers following city's promotion of officers during pendency of appeal), cert. denied, 209 Conn. 824, 552 A.2d 430 (1988)." Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Rocque, 267 Conn. 116, 126, 836 A.2d 414 (2003).
Connecticut courts have rejected injunctive remedies on the ground of mootness where the issue before the court has been resolved or has lost its significance because of intervening circumstances. See Waterbury Hospital v. Connecticut Health Care Associates, 186 Conn. 247, 249-52, 440 A.2d 310 (1982) (court dismissed as moot plaintiff's request for injunctive relief to restrain picketing during strike because strike and picketing had ended while appeal was pending); Daley v. Gaitor, 16 Conn. App. 379, 381 n. 2, 547 A.2d 1375 (court dismissed as moot plaintiff's request to enjoin city of Hartford from administering promotional examination to police officers following city's promotion of officers during pendency of appeal), cert. denied, 209 Conn. 824, 552 A.2d 430 (1988). In the present case, following the court's denial of the application for a temporary injunction on March 29, 2001, the department approved the transfer of all environmental permits and authorizations from Northeast to Dominion.
Among the factors we have identified are: (1) the public importance of the question presented; (2) the potential effect of the ruling on an ongoing program of the state's penal or civil system; and (3) the possibility of a similar effect on the plaintiff himself in the future. Waterbury Hospital v. Connecticut Health Care Associates, 186 Conn. 247, 253 n. 5, 440 A.2d 310 (1982); Delevieleuse v. Manson, supra, 437. The plaintiff at oral argument expressly disavowed any claim that his writ of error might not be moot because of possible adverse legal consequences that might result from his contempt conviction.
The Local has raised a number of issues in its brief challenging the trial court's order. Guided, however, by our recent decision in Waterbury Hospital v. Connecticut Health Care Associates, 186 Conn. 247, 440 A.2d 310 (1982), we find the issues raised by this appeal to be moot. Therefore, we need not address the merits of the case.
It appears from the trial court's memorandum of decision, however, that in order to expedite matters the parties submitted a stipulation of facts upon which the case would be decided, the sole issue to be whether a permanent injunction should issue. Under the circumstances of this case, we deem that the stipulation of facts will suffice as a responsive pleading. See Waterbury Hospital v. Connecticut Health Care Associates, 186 Conn. 247, 248, 440 A.2d 310 (1982). In addition to the use of the stipulation, the trial court held a hearing so that supplemental facts might be presented.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Waterbury Hospital v. Connecticut Health Care Associates, 186 Conn. 247, 252, 440 A.2d 310 (1982). Discussion
A moot question is one that is "disconnected from the granting of the actual relief or from a determination of which no practical relief can follow." Hartford Principals' and Supervisors' Association v. Shedd, supra, 202 Conn. 497; see also Waterbury Hospital v. Connecticut Health Care Associates, 186 Conn. 247, 249-250, 440 A.2d 310 (1982). "The term `mootness'. . . typically applies to a situation where, during the pendency of an appeal, events have occurred that make [a] . . . court incapable of granting practical relief through a disposition on the merits."
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 126-27, citing Waterbury Hospital v. Connecticut Health Care Associates, 186 Conn. 247, 253 n. 5, 440 A.2d 310 (1982);Delevieleuse v. Manson, supra, 184 Conn. 437 n. 2. The court finds that the present case falls within the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine, as the mitigating factors set forth above are satisfied. Pursuant to P.A. 93-369 ยง 1(d), any order to administer involuntary medication entered as a result of an internal hearing is only valid for thirty (30) days or until a subsequent decision of the probate court, whichever is sooner.
That sort of purely academic dispute does not give rise to a live controversy between the parties or allow for effective relief so as to qualify as a collateral consequence. See, e.g., Waterbury Hospitalv.Connecticut Health Care Associates, 186 Conn. 247, 250, 440 A.2d 310 (1982) (''[when] the question presented is purely academic, we must refuse to entertain the appeal'' (internal quotation marks omitted)). If it did, the exception would swallow the rule, and few if any appeals would be moot.