Tax protester sought declaration that separate advisory votes were required for each tax increase in tax legislation.
The Superior Court dismissed the action. Protester appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that:
- Protester’s appeal was moot;
- Public interest exception to mootness doctrine applied;
- Phrase “not subject to appeal” applied only to short description to be placed on ballot for advisory vote; and
- Protester’s petition for declaratory judgment was untimely.
Exception to mootness doctrine for matters of continuing and substantial public interest applied to tax protester’s appeal from trial court’s denial of his petition for declaratory judgment as untimely, in protester’s action claiming that a separate advisory vote was required for each tax increase enacted by tax legislation; the content of a ballot and issues of statutory interpretation were generally matters of substantial public interest, the timeliness and appealability issues did not depend on the nature of the tax increases at issue, and whether separate advisory votes were required was an issue that would likely recur with each package of legislative tax increases.