Opinion ID: 2276356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Justiciability of the Appeal

Text: As a preliminary matter we must determine whether the issue before us remains a live controversy. Subject only to a narrow exception, this Court does not opine on moot cases. In re Westerly Hospital, 963 A.2d 636, 638 (R.I.2009) (mem.). Although the Rhode Island Constitution does not limit judicial review to actual cases and controversies, State v. Lead Industries Association, 898 A.2d 1234, 1237 (R.I.2006), this Court has long recognized that the nature of judicial power warrants our general policy against answering moot, abstract, academic, or hypothetical questions. Morris v. D'Amario, 416 A.2d 137, 139 (R.I.1980). Indeed because `our whole idea of judicial power' is entailed within the concept of courts applying laws to cases and controversies within their jurisdiction a court's judicial power is at its weakest ebb when acting upon a moot question. Sullivan v. Chafee, 703 A.2d 748, 752 (R.I.1997). A once fully justiciable case may become moot when events occurring after the filing have deprived the litigant of an ongoing stake in the controversy. City of Cranston v. Rhode Island Laborers' District Council, Local 1033, 960 A.2d 529, 533 (R.I.2008) (quoting Seibert v. Clark, 619 A.2d 1108, 1110 (R.I.1993)). Moreover, if this Court's judgment would fail to have a practical effect on the existing controversy, the question has become moot. Id. The matter before us no longer presents a live controversy. Three years after United Service's first petition for an election among RITBA employees was denied, the board granted its second petition. The employees elected United Service, and the board officially certified its representation on May 19, 2008. At present, a collective-bargaining agreement between RITBA and United Service exists, scheduled to expire on June 30, 2011. As such, the question originally posed, whether United Service was entitled to an election in April 2005, is moot; any decision by this Court will have no effect on the parties. Only when this Court determines that an otherwise moot controversy is of extreme public importance, which [is] capable of repetition but which [evades] review, shall we address the merits of such a case. City of Cranston, 960 A.2d at 533 (quoting Arnold v. Lebel, 941 A.2d 813, 819 (R.I.2007)). Cases of extreme public importance are those involving issues of great significance such as important constitutional rights, matters concerning a person's livelihood, or matters concerning citizen voting rights. Id. at 533-34 (quoting Cicilline v. Almond, 809 A.2d 1101, 1106 (R.I.2002)). This dispute between two competing unions for representation of RITBA's employees is not of extreme public importance: it does not involve important constitutional rights, a person's livelihood, or citizen voting rights. See City of Cranston, 960 A.2d at 533-34. Furthermore, the facts giving rise to the initial dispute cannot be said to be capable of repetition, yet evading review. The present facts are specific to the present situation: a rival union requested an election within the window period, but coincidentally just after the incumbent union prematurely negotiated and executed a successor collective-bargaining agreement. A live controversy no longer exists, nor does it warrant exception to the mootness doctrine; we decline to opine on the merits.