Home

Table of Contents

 Table of Forms

 Law Journals-US

Authoritative Dictionary

Courts

  Thesaurus
         

iLaw Dictionary

    USAConstitution Law
         

California

    Law Students-USL
         

Law Dictionary

    BankruptcyCode.US
         

Mootness-Exception

    United States Law.US

US Codes

 State Codes

Evidence

 Law Students-USL

 Federal Civil Procedure-Main Page

 Medical Dictionaries
                                                 
      
A Legal and Business Portal-Home Page
   

   
                 
                 

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
 Mootness-Great Public Import Exception
(In re Stevens )

 

Mootness-Great Public Import Exception
(
In re Stevens )

 

DISCUSSION

1.  Mootness

            Review of a moot issue is appropriate where it is "of great public import and transcend[s] the concerns of these particular parties."  (Beilenson v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal. App.4th 944, 949.)  Even when moot, a novel question of continuing public interest is often deserving of consideration by an appellate court.  (Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 746-747 [determining the validity of local zoning ordinance was important to orderly planning even though moot]; John A. v. San Bernardino City Unified School Dist. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 301, 307 [student's readmission to school did not render moot due process issues concerning expulsion].)

            That parole restrictions may be case-specific does not necessarily affect mootness.  This case, however novel, reflects the challenge courts face as they seek to apply traditional principles of law to issues involving cyberspace.  There are federal cases speaking to this issue, but as yet no published California opinion dealing with the issue.[2]  Each year, more than 115,000 parolees are released from our state prisons and are returned into a society increasingly linked to the Internet.  (California Dept. of Corrections, County and Region of Parole Data Analysis Unit, Estimates and Analysis Section (May 2003) Ref. No. Misc-5, Table 1A, p. 4.)  Parole officers must determine what criteria they should use in deciding which parolees will be denied access to the Internet.  We trust our decision will provide guidance to parole officers who bear the responsibility of designing effective and reasonable conditions of parole.  We therefore deny the motion to dismiss.

In re Stevens B1703286/29/04 CA2/6

Jun 29 2004 B170328
[PDF] [DOC]
In re Stevens B1703286/29/04 CA2/6 Detailed case information


Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet |Check Your Credit Score
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents |
California Injury (Torts) Law
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com |starUnited Statea News
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.ComLibrary of Congress
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US | California Appeals
iBusiness Center.US |
United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law | California Writs
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commission 
California Civil Procedure.Com | Federal Civil Procedure.Com       
Yaazoo! | Abogados Latinos | United States History | Spanish


Copyright 2003 by  © - iLawDictionary.Com™©  All Rights Reserved