Commonwealth, Kentucky Board of Nursing v. Sullivan University System, Inc., 433 S.W.3d 341

Spencerian operated an Associate Degree in Nursing (ADN) program that repeatedly failed Board evaluative standards and was placed on conditional then probationary approval after low NCLEX first-time pass rates.
The Board’s regulation originally required an 85% pass rate for “graduates of a program”; a 2009 amendment clarified the 85% requirement applied to first-time test takers.
The Board asserted it had always interpreted the rule as applying to first-time takers and therefore did not retroactively apply the amendment when downgrading Spencerian to probationary status.
Spencerian sued, claiming the Board retroactively applied the 2009 regulatory amendment; the circuit court sided with the Board, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding retroactive application.
While the appeal was pending, Spencerian improved its program and achieved a 98% first-time pass rate in 2012; the Board restored full approval in Feb. 2013, and Spencerian remains fully approved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board retroactively applied the 2009 amendment to Spencerian’s past test results	Spencerian: Board retroactively applied the amended regulation to pre-amendment conduct, harming the program	Board: It consistently interpreted the regulation as applying to first-time takers; 2009 amendment merely clarified existing practice	Court of Appeals found retroactive application; this Court avoided merits due to mootness and did not resolve retroactivity on the merits
Whether the appeal is moot and what relief a reviewing court may grant	Spencerian: (implicit) sought removal from probation and relief from retroactive application	Board: (implicit) sought affirmation of its actions/interpretation	Supreme Court: Appeal dismissed as moot because Board restored full approval and no live controversy remains; vacated lower-court judgments and remanded to dismiss

Veith v. City of Louisville, 355 S.W.2d 295 (Ky. 1962) (courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot controversies)
Med. Vision Grp., P.S.C. v. Philpot, 261 S.W.3d 485 (Ky. 2008) (appellate court must dismiss appeals when circumstances prevent meaningful relief)
Ky. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n v. Edwards, 256 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2008) (court must address its subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
Commonwealth v. Hughes, 873 S.W.2d 828 (Ky. 1994) (no jurisdiction to decide non-justiciable issues)
Hughes v. Welch, 664 S.W.2d 205 (Ky. App. 1984) (questions that are advisory or not decisive of a present controversy are non-justiciable)