Hedrick-Koroll v. Bagley

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• addressing expired order under “public interest” exception to mootness doctrine in case wherein trial court failed to make statutorily required factual findings
• stating that “moot issues may be reviewed under [the] public interest exception when there is a substantial public or private question involved, an authoritative determination is required for future guidance, and the issue is likely to recur”
• remanding matter for trial court to set forth the findings mandated by section 214(c) of the Act
• collecting cases: “The failure to make the required findings is reversible error.”
• “because the plenary order of protection expired on January 1, 2004, the issues respondent raises on appeal are 4 moot.”
• case remanded with instructions where, in extending plenary order of protection, trial court failed to make findings in “an official record or writing” as required by statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).