Opinion ID: 2594248
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Public Interest Exception to the Mootness Doctrine Applies.

Text: A preliminary question is whether this appeal is moot, given that the emergency rule enacted by the Railroad has expired. A disputed claim is moot when its resolution would not result in any actual relief, even if the claiming party prevailed. [30] If a challenged law or rule is repealed or expires, a case is moot. [31] Eklutna states in its brief that this matter would be moot except that it falls under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. We examine the following three factors to determine whether the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies: (1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may repeatedly circumvent review of the issues, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine. [32] Here, the disputed issue is capable of repetition because the Railroad could enact another emergency rule in the future. If the Railroad chose to do so, the mootness doctrine could circumvent review because every emergency rule enacted by the Railroad must expire within 120 days by statute. [33] Therefore, if Eklutna were to challenge a future emergency rule enacted by the Railroad, the challenge would likely be rendered moot by expiration of the emergency rule while litigation is pending. Finally, whether the Railroad may enact rules allowing it to circumvent local land use rules is a matter of public interest. For these reasons, we conclude that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies. The Municipality argues that this appeal will not become ripe until the Railroad applies for a conditional use permit and is denied one. That is not the issue in this case, which stems from Eklutna's challenge to the Railroad's emergency rule. The Municipality also argues that the issues in this case are beyond the scope of this court's remand because, under this court's holding in Eklutna II, the Railroad must apply for a conditional use permit before the court will entertain further proceedings. While it is true that this court will not hear appeals of issues beyond the scope of the remand from a prior appeal, [34] this principle does not apply to this case. Eklutna, not the Railroad, introduced this round of litigation. The important question here is not whether the Railroad has raised a new issue on remand, but whether there are any new issues in this appeal.