Cited by

And as our jurisdiction is limited to appeals by a “party aggrieved by a judgment,” ARCAP 1(d); ¶ 6 (App. 2014), we dismiss the appeal as to Calhoun only.

Arizona courts are not constitutionally constrained to consider only ‘cases’ or ‘controversies,’ we typically decline to consider moot or abstract questions as a matter of judicial restraint.” –93, ¶ 8 (App. 2014); ¶ 15 (App. 2019) (case is moot when it seeks to determine a question that does not arise upon existing facts).

Our jurisdiction is limited to appeals taken by a “party aggrieved by a judgment.” ARCAP 1(d); ¶ 6 (App. 2014).

of Supervisors, ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (“A case becomes moot when an event occurs which would cause the outcome of the appeal to have no practical effect on the parties.”) (quotation omitted); ¶¶ 8-9 (App. 2014) (holding that plaintiff’s claim against the sheriff’s office’s handling of a writ of restitution was resolved by the property occupants’ eviction).

¶9 We generally refrain from deciding issues which will have no “practical effect in settling the rights of litigants.” ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (quoting Progressive Specialty Ins.

See, , 192 ¶ 6, (“an appellant is only entitled to appeal from “‘that part of the judgment by which [it] is aggrieved” ’ ”) (citation omitted); Chambers v. United Farm Workers Org.

¶ 6, (appellate jurisdiction is confined to appeals taken by party aggrieved by a judgment; party may not appeal a court’s ruling which is favorable to that party) (citations omitted).

Comm., AFL– CIO, (); ¶ 6 (App. 2014); Farmers Ins.

Comm., AFL-CIO, ( RUSSELL PICCOLI v. O’DONNELL Decision of the Court 556, ); ¶ 6, Farmers Ins.

Although “we may elect to consider issues that have become moot if there is either an issue of great public importance or an issue capable of repetition yet evading review,” ¶ 8, (quoting Bank of N.Y.

questions as a matter of judicial restraint.” -93, ¶ 8, -83 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 9, ).