An advisory opinion on our part concerning the Attorney General's standing to sue an executive agency of the state would be meaningless as respects the controversy over which this action was brought. See Bd. of Trustees v. Kenworthy, 253 Ga. 554, 557 ( 322 S.E.2d 720) (1984); Chastain v. Baker, 255 Ga. 432 ( 339 S.E.2d 241) (1986). A narrow exception to the actual controversy rule is that the question is "capable of repetition, yet evading review."

Cf. Bd. of Trustees of Employees Retirement System. v. Kenworthy, 253 Ga. 554, ( 322 S.E.2d 720) (1984) (Bullard, Judge, concurring) (judicial economy does not compel or justify a substantive determination at the expense of due process). Or perhaps the majority seeks to keep this appeal to enact some unstated "public policy" exception to the mootness doctrine.

Bowers v. Bd. of Regents, 259 Ga. 221 ( 378 S.E.2d 460) (1989). A controversy is justiciable when it is definite and concrete, rather than being hypothetical, abstract, academic, or moot. Board of Trustees v. Kenworthy, 253 Ga. 554, 557 ( 322 S.E.2d 720) (1984). Similarly, federal courts employ the doctrine of "ripeness" under the Article III requirement of a "case or controversy."

Pilgrim v. First Nat. Bank, supra. See also Bd. of Trustees, etc. v. Kenworthy, 253 Ga. 554 ( 322 S.E.2d 720) (1984). In fact, the argument portion of the brief filed by appellees with this court consisted of a request that appellees be allowed to adopt the arguments made by appellants.

Bowers v. Bd. of Regents, 259 Ga. 221 ( 378 SE2d 460) (1989). A controversy is justiciable when it is definite and concrete, rather than being hypothetical, abstract, academic, or moot. Board of Trustees v. Kenworthy, 253 Ga. 554, 557 ( 322 SE2d 720) (1984).Cheeks v. Miller, 262 Ga. 687, 688 ( 425 SE2d 278) (1993).

O.C.G.A. § 9-4-2 (a); Baker v. City of Marietta, 271 Ga. 210, 213 (1) ( 518 S.E.2d 879) (1999).Bd. of Trustees etc. v. Kenworthy, 253 Ga. 554, 557 ( 322 S.E.2d 720) (1984). [f]or a controversy to justify the making of a declaration, it must include a right claimed by one party and denied by the other, and not merely a question as to the abstract meaning or validity of a statute.

Thus, there exists no reviewable ruling on the motion for sanctions, and we will not render an advisory opinion thereon. See Bd. of Trustees c. of Ga. v. Kenworthy, 253 Ga. 554, 557 ( 322 S.E.2d 720). Judgment reversed and remanded with direction. Ruffin and Eldridge, JJ., concur.

(a) We note that, contrary to Carlock's contention, this issue was not rendered moot by the grant of summary judgment to Cub Foods. "`A controversy is justiciable when it is appropriate for judicial determination. It must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests, rather than being hypothetical, abstract, academic or moot.'" Bd. of Trustees c. v. Kenworthy, 253 Ga. 554, 557 ( 322 S.E.2d 720) (1984). A motion is moot "when a determination is sought on a matter which, when rendered, cannot have any practical effect on the existing controversy."

A controversy is justiciable when it is definite and concrete, rather than being hypothetical, abstract, academic, or moot. Board of Trustees v. Kenworthy, 253 Ga. 554, 557 ( 322 S.E.2d 720) (1984). Similarly, federal courts employ the doctrine of 'ripeness' under the Article III requirement of a 'case or controversy.'

The Company is in essence seeking an advisory opinion construing the scope of and timing for, evidence in a proceeding under OCGA §§ 46-2-26.4 and 46-2-25 (b), for future rate cases. We treat such as did the Supreme Court in Bd. of Trustees c. v. Kenworthy, 253 Ga. 554, 557 ( 322 S.E.2d 720) (1984): "This court has in the past generally refused to issue advisory opinions. [Cits.] . . .