Residents and public interest groups sought judicial review of decision by town board of architectural review approving construction of proposed development project.
The Court of Common Pleas affirmed. Residents and public interest groups appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Residents and public interest groups filed petition for writ of certiorari, which was granted.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Appeal from decision affirming board’s approval of project was moot;
- Exception to mootness doctrine for issues capable of repetition, yet evading review, did not apply; and
- Public interest exception to mootness doctrine did not apply.
Appeal from decision affirming decision by town board of architectural review approving construction of proposed development project was moot; issue was whether developer could build the project as approved by the board, controversy ended when developer decided not to build project while appeal was pending, and decision rendered for either party would not provide any practical relief and would be a purely academic exercise by appellate court.
Exception to mootness doctrine permitting appellate court to decide merits of moot appeal for issues capable of repetition, yet evading review, did not apply to appeal filed by residents and public interest groups challenging decision affirming approval of proposed development project by town board of architectural review on grounds of purported Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and town ordinance violations, which was rendered moot when developer decided not to build project while appeal was pending; although issues related to purported FOIA and ordinance violations were capable of repetition, they did not evade review, since appeal did not become moot because there was insufficient time to challenge board’s approval before controversy ended.
Public interest exception to mootness doctrine did not apply to permit appellate court to decide merits of appeal filed by residents and public interest groups challenging decision affirming approval of proposed development project by town board of architectural review on grounds of purported Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and town ordinance violations, which was rendered moot when developer decided not to build project while appeal was pending; while it was important that citizens had the ability to stay informed of the activities of public bodies, there was no imperative or manifest urgency requiring appellate court to issue opinion on application of FOIA and town ordinances to board’s activity.