The Incomprehensibility of Nevada's Capable-of-Repetition-Yet-Evading-Review Doctrine

Authors

Tom Stewart

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

4-19-2022

Abstract

Nevada appellate courts recognize and apply an exception to the mootness doctrine that exists in federal court but does not currently have any basis in any state court rule or statute and, thus, should not be applied by Nevada’s appellate courts. Indeed, because no statute or court rule authorizes the Nevada appellate courts to hear cases that have been rendered moot but may be capable of repetition, yet evade review, Nevada’s appellate courts have no authority to do so. Thus, the appellate courts’ decisions entered on that basis are void. However, the solution to this problem is simple: the Nevada legislature could enact a statute that allows Nevada’s courts to hear such appeals, or the Nevada Supreme Court could modify the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure to provide the appellate courts the ability to do so.

Publication Citation

Tom Stewart, The Incomprehensibility of Nevada's Capable-of-Repetition-Yet-Evading-Review Doctrine, 6 Nev. L.J. Forum 1 (2022).

Recommended Citation

Stewart, Tom (2022) "The Incomprehensibility of Nevada's Capable-of-Repetition-Yet-Evading-Review Doctrine," Nevada Law Journal Forum: Vol. 6, Article 1.
Available at: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nljforum/vol6/iss1/1