Title: BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT #25 V. BM
Citation: 129 P.3d 317, 2006 WY 23
Docket Number: 
State: Wyoming
Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court
Date: March 7, 2006

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT #25 V. BM Annotate this Case BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT #25 V. BM 2006 WY 23 129 P.3d 317 Case Number: C-05-6 Decided: 03/07/2006 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2005 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FREMONT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT #25, Appellant (Respondent), v. BM, Appellee (Petitioner). Appeal from the DistrictCourtofFremontCounty The Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge Representing Appellant: Joel M. Vincent of Vincent & Vincent, Riverton, Wyoming Representing Appellee: R. Daniel Fleck and Emily R. Rankin of The Spence Law Firm, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ., and STEBNER, D.J., Retired. HILL, Chief Justice. [¶1] BM was expelled from Riverton High School by the Board of Trustees of Fremont County School District #25 for violations of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-4-305(a)1 and 21-4-306(a)(v)2 (LexisNexis 2005). The expulsion order was suspended subject to a ten-day "in school suspension" and a requirement that he sign and abide by a "Behavior Contract." BM filed a petition of review with the district court, which was reversed. The district court concluded that the Board had failed to comply with the statutory procedural requirements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-107(b)(iv)3 (LexisNexis 2005), and that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board's determination that BM's conduct constituted a violation of the cited statutes. The Board appeals the district court's judgment. Since the commencement of these proceedings, BM has served his sentence of suspension, complied with the terms of the "Behavior Contract," and graduated from high school. Accordingly, we conclude that the proceedings are moot and dismiss the appeal. ISSUE [¶2] The determinative issue on appeal is whether BM's compliance with the terms of his punishment and subsequent graduation from high school has rendered the matter moot. DISCUSSION [¶3] We will dismiss any appeal where we have notice of facts that have the effect of making any determination of a question unnecessary or which would render any judgment we made ineffectual. Penny v. State ex rel. Wyoming Mental Health Professions Licensing Board, 2005 WY 117, ¶2, 120 P.3d 152 , 156-57 (Wyo. 2005) (quoting Department of Revenue and Taxation, Motor Vehicle Division v. Andrews, 671 P.2d 1239 , 1244 (Wyo. 1983)). We have previously noted that when a student's expulsion period has expired, the question regarding its propriety is moot. In the Interest of RM, 2004 WY 162, ¶8, 102 P.3d 868 , 871 (Wyo. 2004). There are exceptions to the mootness doctrine: when a question presents an issue of great public importance or if the controversy is capable of repetition yet evading review. Id. at ¶¶8-9, 102 P.2d at 871; see also Walker v. Board of County Commissioners of Albany County, 644 P.2d 772 , 774 (Wyo. 1982); and Board of County Commissioners v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 2002 WY 151, ¶18, 55 P.3d 714 , 720 (Wyo. 2002). We applied both exceptions in RM where the issue presented was a reserved constitutional question asking whether a school district was required to provide an education to a lawfully expelled student. This case does not present any constitutional question for resolution. Furthermore, this matter is moot only because of its proximity to BM's graduation. Similar controversies will not necessarily evade review. Therefore, we conclude that neither of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine is applicable here. [¶4] Dismissed. FOOT