Opinion ID: 1925181
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: tro

Text: ¶ 10. Defendant's first argument on appeal, that the superior court abused its discretion by issuing the August 1, 2001 TRO, fails for mootness. Generally, `a case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.' In re Vt. State Employees' Ass'n, 2005 VT 135, ¶ 10, 179 Vt. 578, 893 A.2d 338 (mem.) (quoting In re Moriarty, 156 Vt. 160, 163, 588 A.2d 1063, 1064 (1991)). Here, the TRO was effective for one daythe day of the demonstration and enjoined defendant only from selling products or services, which he claims it was not his intention to do anyway. A ruling on the validity of the TRO would be null, as the TRO related only to the one advertised show, and a reversal would at this point have no effect on either of the parties. In any event, however, the superior court acted within its discretion when it issued the one-day TRO based on the State's evidence that: (1) defendant's advertisement offered free electricity for life, (2) UCSA's representative admitted that the technology for free electricity did not exist, and (3) Vermont consumers were expected to attend defendant's show that day as a result of the deceptive advertisement.