Opinion ID: 2087418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: is appeal moot?

Text: A case becomes moot when the issues initially presented in the litigation cease to exist, when the litigants lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of litigation, or when the litigants seek to determine a question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights, in which the issues presented are no longer alive. [4] The issue originally presented in this appeal was whether the Aupperles had standing to object to Koch's permit applications based upon their status as upstream landowners and the provisions of § 46-241(2), under which an on-channel reservoir with a water storage impounding capacity of less than 15-acre feet is exempted from DNR permit requirements. We conclude that this case is moot. Our resolution of the standing issue would have no impact on the DNR's consideration of Koch's applications, as that administrative proceeding has been concluded. The Aupperles argue that [t]he question on appeal ultimately concerns the extent of DNR's regulatory authority over the owners of certain small ponds. [5] But the DNR has not sought in this action to exercise any regulatory authority over the Aupperles. Thus, any determination of the respective water rights of the Aupperles and Koch would constitute nothing more than an advisory opinion, as there is no case and controversy regarding such rights. In the absence of an actual case or controversy requiring judicial resolution, it is not the function of the courts to render a judgment that is merely advisory. [6] A court decides real controversies and determines rights actually controverted, and does not address or dispose of abstract questions or issues that might arise in a hypothetical or fictitious situation or setting. [7]