Opinion ID: 1175455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: exceptions to mootness doctrine

Text: Oklahoma jurisprudence recognizes but two escape hatches from the mootness doctrine  the public-interest [4] and the likelihood-of-recurrence [5] exceptions. Neither of these exceptions is invocable here. While the question before us presents a controversy over public revenue  and hence arguably is one of public interest [6] the likelihood of its recurrence in the same or in a substantially similar legal context is at best one of pure conjecture. The withdrawn tax assessment covered the years 1982-1983. Reassessment of the tax against Tribune for the same period would be subject to a bar of limitations. [7] OTC's midappeal affidavit states that no tax protest was then pending by any franchise taxpayer. Tribune does not inform us of additional franchise taxes being assessed against other entities or of any pending protests by taxpayers similarly affected. Moreover, Tribune has not shown by counter-affidavit any facts supporting its assertion that OTC is likely to impose the contested tax in the future; neither has it demonstrated that if such a tax assessment were imposed again, the contest could not be fully litigated. [8] In short, Tribune has not met its burden of showing that the issue raised in this appeal retains a residue of viability because it is based on circumstances capable of repetition, yet evading review. [9] Because the precise issue tendered here is now time-barred and the likelihood of its recurrence in a substantially similar context is at best conjectural, I would order the appeal dismissed but would direct that OTC pay for Tribune's appeal-related legal services and litigation expenses. [10]