Cited by

“Typically, that exception is applicable when, because of time constraints, an issue that is capable of recurring cannot be decided by the appellate court.” ¶ 7 (App. 2012).

¶ 5 (App. 2012) (this court generally dismisses an appeal as moot “when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties”) (citation omitted).

Even so, we exercise our discretion to hear and decide the appeal because it presents an issue “capable of repetition yet evading review.” –618, ¶¶ 5, 9 (App. 2012) (“Our reluctance to consider a moot question is not driven by the Arizona constitution but is a matter of prudential or judicial restraint subject to the exercise of our discretion.”).

3 SAFEWAY v. GARCIA, et al. Decision of the Court Although our reluctance to consider moot questions is a discretionary (rather than constitutional) restraint under Arizona law, ¶ 5 (App. 2012), such restraint ensures, at a minimum, “that the issues will be fully developed by true adversaries” with an interest in the outcome.

As an exercise of judicial restraint, we will generally dismiss an appeal unless it presents an issue of “great public importance or one capable of repetition yet evading review.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012).

The determination of whether an appeal is moot is “a matter of prudential or judicial restraint subject to the exercise of our discretion.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012).

We dismiss the appeal as moot because the executive orders have expired and “our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012).

The order is not moot, ¶ 14 (App. 2012), and we have jurisdiction, see A.R.S.

Mootness is not a constitutional concern under Arizona law but rather “a matter of prudential or judicial restraint subject to the exercise of our discretion.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012).

¶26 As a matter of judicial restraint, we will consider an issue moot “when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties,” unless the matter presents an issue of “great public importance or one capable of repetition yet evading review.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012).