Court Opinion

ID: 9760384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:51:25.865272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:11.418478
License: Public Domain

MAUZY, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. An exception to the mootness doctrine is well-recognized with respect to cases of public importance —especially election cases — which are likely to recur in the future. See, e.g., Fine v. Elections Board, 95 Wis.2d 162, 289 N.W.2d 823 (1980) (although election already held with plaintiff’s name on ballot, case would not be dismissed as moot); Foster v. Cuyahoga Co. Bd. of Elections, 53 Ohio App.2d 213, 373 N.E.2d 1274 (1977); Carr v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 40 N.Y.2d 556, 356 N.E.2d 713, 356 N.E.2d 713 (1976). Because the issues raised in this cause are of considerable public importance and virtually certain to arise repeatedly in the near future, I believe we should reach the merits of the cause using the analysis discussed in my concurring opinion in Brady v. Fourteenth Court, C-9538, 33 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 391 (April 11, 1990).