Cited by

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”).

Matters of great public importance are those that have a “broad public impact beyond resolution of the specific case.” ¶ 6 (App. 2012).

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

¶7 We will, as a matter of judicial restraint, “dismiss an appeal as moot when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties,” unless such appeal presents an issue of “great public importance or one capable of repetition yet evading review.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012); see also Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, (appellate courts do not give opinions on questions that “by a change in a condition of affairs” have become moot).