Opinion ID: 2830912
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: ¶ 1 In this appeal, we are asked to decide the constitutionality of Utah‟s Asset Preservation Statute. But in order to reach this issue, we must first consider whether Ms. Steed‟s claims are justiciable. Generally, if the requested judicial relief cannot affect the rights of the parties, the case is moot and we will not hear it. Ms. Steed has conceded her claims are technically moot. But she argues that our mootness exception applies. Under this exception, we will hear a technically moot case if it affects the public interest, is likely to recur, and because of the brief time that any one litigant is affected, is likely to evade review. We conclude that Ms. Steed‟s claims do not warrant the application of this exception, because a freeze order under the Asset Preservation Statute is not inherently short in duration and thus is not likely to evade review. Because Ms. Steed has conceded technical mootness and we conclude that our mootness exception does not apply, we dismiss the case.