Doe v. Upper Arlington Bd. of Edn., 2021 Ohio 3805

In July 2020 the Upper Arlington Board adopted a Resolution authorizing the 2020–2021 school year to begin in Enhanced Distance Learning (no in-person attendance) through at least Sept. 18, 2020.
In August 2020 John Doe (using a pseudonym) and others sued the Board and related officials seeking damages and a preliminary injunction to prohibit enforcement of the July 31 Resolution and to compel an in-person option.
The trial court denied the preliminary-injunction motion and, in January 2021, entered a decision and certified that denial as a final appealable order.
Doe appealed in January 2021; by March 2021 the Board had voted to return to full in-person instruction and, by oral argument in October 2021, schools were operating in-person and the challenged Resolution had expired.
The Tenth District held that because the requested preliminary injunction would only have affected the prior school year and cannot provide meaningful prospective relief now, the appeal is moot and must be dismissed; the court declined to address the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of preliminary injunction was erroneous because Ohio Constitution provides a fundamental right to a basic minimum education	Doe argued the trial court erred in denying the injunction and that the Constitution secures a fundamental right supporting relief	Board argued enforcement of the Resolution was lawful and, ultimately, that the case is moot given changed circumstances	Court did not reach the constitutional merits; it dismissed the appeal as moot because the injunction would only have provided relief for a past period
Whether any mootness exception applies (public interest or capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review)	Doe invoked a public/general interest angle and the possibility of recurrence	Board noted schools had resumed in-person instruction and the statutory/legislative context changed; argued no reasonable expectation of repetition and no inherent evasion of review	Court held exceptions do not apply: no reasonable likelihood of recurrence to Doe during his remaining school time and the issues are not inherently unreviewable; appeal dismissed

Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 103 Ohio St.3d 398 (2004) (explaining courts should dismiss moot cases)
State v. Cupp, 156 Ohio St.3d 207 (2018) (reiterating that courts do not decide moot cases)
State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Geer, 114 Ohio St.3d 511 (2007) (discussing the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception)
State ex rel. Calvary v. Upper Arlington, 89 Ohio St.3d 229 (2000) (describing standards for recurring short-duration actions and mootness exceptions)