We may only consider Joseph's claims if they fall within a recognized exception to the mootness doctrine. In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 351, 910 N.E.2d 74, 78 (2009). Although there is no general exception for mental health cases, these cases usually fall within a recognized exception.
The only question to be determined with regard to this exception is whether there is a reasonable expectation respondent will be subject personally to the same action again. In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 358-59, 910 N.E.2d 74, 82 (2009). Respondent acknowledges our supreme court has found where a claim on appeal raises the issue of sufficient evidence to order involuntary commitment, it does not meet the requirement of "same action" where a respondent disputes whether the specific facts established at his hearing were sufficient to find he was a danger to himself or to others and, thus, subject to involuntary commitment.
ΒΆ 43 Generally, courts of review do not decide moot questions, render advisory opinions, or consider issues where the result will not be affected by the court's decision. In re Alfred H.H. , 233 Ill. 2d 345, 351, 331 Ill.Dec. 1, 910 N.E.2d 74 (2009). However, there are three established exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) the "public interest" exception, applicable where the case presents a question of public importance that will likely recur and whose answer will guide public officers in the performance of their duties; (2) the "capable of repetition" exception, applicable to cases involving events of short duration that are capable of repetition, yet evading review; and (3) the "collateral consequences exception," applicable where the involuntary treatment order could return to plague the respondent in some future proceedings or affect other aspects of the respondent's life.
Generally, Illinois courts do not decide moot questions, render advisory opinions or consider issues where the result will not be affected by the court's decision. In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 351, 910 N.E.2d 74, 78 (2009). There are three established mootness exceptions: (1) the public interest exception; (2) the capable-of-repetition-yet-avoiding-review exception; and (3) the collateral consequences exception.
Whether the appellate court's mootness determination is correct is an issue of law which we review de novo. In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill.2d 345, 350, 331 Ill.Dec. 1, 910 N.E.2d 74 (2009). ΒΆ 31 In AlfredH.H., we held that the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable in mental health cases.
ΒΆ 44 Generally, courts of review do not decide moot questions, render advisory opinions, or consider issues where the result will not be affected by the court's decision. In re Alfred H.H. , 233 Ill. 2d 345, 351, 331 Ill.Dec. 1, 910 N.E.2d 74 (2009). However, there are three established exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) the "public interest" exception, applicable where the case presents a question of public importance that will likely recur and whose answer will guide public officers in the performance of their duties; (2) the "capable of repetition" exception, applicable to cases involving events of short duration that are capable of repetition, yet evading review; and (3) the "collateral consequences exception," applicable where the involuntary treatment order could return to plague the respondent in some future proceedings or could affect other aspects of the respondent's life.
"As a general rule, courts in Illinois do not decide moot questions ***." In re Alfred H.H. , 233 Ill. 2d 345, 350, 331 Ill.Dec. 1, 910 N.E.2d 74 (2009). There is no dispute that Rob's appeals are moot, insofar as both of the underlying orders were limited in duration and have now expired.
Although most mental health cases fall within one or more of the recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine, "there is no per se exception to mootness that universally applies to mental health cases." In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 355 (2009). The determination of whether a case falls within a particular exception must be made on a case-by-case basis.
ΒΆ 25 Generally, courts of review do not decide moot questions, render advisory opinions, or consider issues where the result will not be affected by the court's decision. In re Alfred H.H. , 233 Ill.2d 345, 351, 331 Ill.Dec. 1, 910 N.E.2d 74 (2009). However, there are three established exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) the "public-interest" exception, applicable where the case presents a question of public importance that will likely recur and whose answer will guide public officers in the performance of their duties, (2) the "capable-of-repetition" exception, applicable to cases involving events of short duration that are capable of repetition, yet evading review, and (3) the "collateral-consequences exception," applicable where the involuntary treatment order could return to plague the respondent in some future proceeding or could affect other aspects of the respondent's life.
However, issues raised in an otherwise moot appeal may be reviewed when (1) addressing the issues involved is in the public interest; (2) the case is capable of repetition, yet evades review; or (3) the respondent will potentially suffer collateral consequences as a result of the trial court's judgment. In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 355-61, 910 N.E.2d 74, 80-83 (2009). GAC addresses several potential issues for review in its motion to withdraw and the possibility that those issues would meet the exceptions to the mootness doctrine.