Court Opinion

ID: 9523350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:39:38.566382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:57.003898
License: Public Domain

DEMPSEY, J., dissenting: If it were not for the question of mootness I would agree with the opinion of my colleagues. Two days after the plaintiffs filed their case, the defendants modified their procedure for the election of directors. The controversy no longer existed. The case was moot while in the trial court, is moot here, and should be dismissed. “The general rule is that when a reviewing court has notice of facts which show that only moot questions or mere abstract propositions are involved or where the substantial questions involved in the trial court no longer exist, it will dismiss the appeal or writ of error.” People v. Redlich, 402 Ill. 270, 83 N.E.2d 736. An appeal concerning a moot question need not be dismissed if there is a compelling reason of public interest which warrants its review. “Among the criteria considered in determining the existence of the requisite degree of public interest are the public or private nature of the question presented, the desirability of an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers and the likelihood of future recurrence of the question.” People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 411 Ill. 618, 104 N.E.2d 769. I do not see where this case approaches such standards. I do not believe that interpreting this Indiana corporation’s plan of reorganization, certificate of incorporation and bylaws is of such substantial public interest to justify an Illinois court making this case an exception to the rule; nor do I believe that we should render a judgment just to discourage a possible reversion to the former method of electing directors or to guide potential future litigation. LaSalle Nat. Bank v. City of Chicago, 3 Ill.2d 375, 121 N.E.2d 486.