![handle is hein.journals/nvljform6 and id is 1 raw text is: THE INCOMPREHENSIBILITY OF NEVADA'S
CAPABLE-OF-REPETITION-YET-EVADING-
REVIEW DOCTRINE
By Tom Stewart*
INTRODUCTION
Nevada appellate courts recognize' and apply2 an exception to the
mootness doctrine that exists in federal court3 but does not currently have any
basis in any state court rule or statute and, thus, should not be applied by
Nevada's appellate courts. Indeed, because no statute or court rule authorizes
the Nevada appellate courts to hear cases that have been rendered moot but
may be capable of repetition, yet evade review, Nevada's appellate courts have
no authority to do so.4 Thus, the appellate courts' decisions entered on that
basis are void.5 However, the solution to this problem is simple: the Nevada
legislature could enact a statute that allows Nevada's courts to hear such
appeals, or the Nevada Supreme Court could modify the Nevada Rules of
Appellate Procedure to provide the appellate courts the ability to do so.
* J.D., William S. Boyd School of Law, 2016.
i See, e.g., Traffic Control Servs. v. United Rentals, 87 P.3d 1054, 1057 (Nev. 2004)
(recognizing the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness
doctrine in Nevada).
2 See, e.g., Solid v. Eighth Jud. Dist., 393 P.3d 666, 670 (Nev. 2017) (applying the doctrine);
see also In re Guardianship of L.S. & H.S., 87 P.3d 521, 524 (Nev. 2004) ([W]here an issue
is capable of repetition, yet will evade review because of the nature of its timing, we will not
treat the issue as moot.).
3 See, e.g., Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292, 2323 (2016) (Thomas,
J., dissenting) (citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125 (1973)) (applying the doctrine in the
Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process context).
4 Nevada appellate courts' appellate jurisdiction is limited, see Valley Bank of Nev. v.
Ginsburg, 874 P.2d 729, 732 (Nev. 1994), and the appellate courts may only consider
appeals authorized by statute or court rule. Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, 301 P.3d 850, 851
(Nev. 2013) (en banc) (citing Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 678 P.2d 1152,
1153 (Nev. 1984)).
5 See Stapp v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 826 P.2d 954, 956 (Nev. 1992) (concluding that orders
entered without jurisdiction are void).
1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/nvljform6&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most