Cited by

¶ 16 (App. 2012); ¶ 10 (App. 2002) (stating that this court reviews an injunction against harassment for an abuse of discretion).

We may address an otherwise moot order, however, if it presents an issue “capable of repetition yet evading review” or “if the consequences of that order will continue to affect a party.” ¶¶ 5, 9 (App. 2012).

Sec., ¶ 10 (App. 2000) (stating that even if an order entered after a permanency planning hearing was appealable, the appeal would essentially be rendered moot due to a later order terminating parental rights); ¶ 5 (App. 2012) (“[W]e will dismiss an appeal as moot when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties.”).

¶19 “[W]e will dismiss an appeal as moot when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012).

Accordingly, this court “will [generally] dismiss an appeal as moot when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012).

¶ 8 (App. 2018) (citations omitted); ¶ 18 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 13 (App. 2000)).

¶ 17 (App. 2012) (citation omitted).

–20, ¶ 19 (App. 2012) (“A trial judge is presumed to be free of bias and prejudice .

¶ 5 (App. 2012) (explaining an issue is moot “when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties”).