In re Interest of M.D.M.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an issue is moot where a court’s decision on an issue “cannot have any practical legal effect upon a then existing controversy”
• holding that expiration of a PPO does not render an improperly issued PPO moot given that even an expired PPO may have legal or other collateral consequences
• holding that the mere expiration of a personal protection order did not render a challenge to the order moot when there remained a lingering legal consequence stemming from the entry of the PPO
• holding that “[a] moot case presents nothing but abstract questions of law which do not rest upon existing facts or rights,” and that appellate courts, generally, “will not entertain moot issues or decide moot cases”
• holding that “[a] moot case presents nothing but abstract questions of law which do not rest upon existing facts or rights,” and that appellate courts, generally, “will not entertain moot issues or decide moot cases”
• holding that “[a] moot case presents nothing but abstract questions of law which do not rest upon existing facts or rights,” and that appellate courts, generally, “will not entertain moot issues or decide moot cases”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).