Jagow v. Weinstein
2011 Ohio 2683
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Weinstein appeals a trial court’s denial of his request to terminate a consent-agreement protection order (CPO) against Jagow, which had an expiration date of November 21, 2010.
- The ex-parte protection order was issued on October 5, 2007 and later converted to a consent-agreement CPO.
- Weinstein moved on June 15, 2009 to terminate or modify the CPO; the trial court denied on October 12, 2010.
- The CPO expired, and Jagow later sought a new protection order in November 2010, which she dismissed in March 2011.
- Weinstein argues the appeal falls within the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review mootness exception, despite expiration.
- The court ultimately dismisses the appeal as moot and declines to apply the exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot due to expiration of the CPO? | Jagow argues the order’s expiration renders the appeal moot. | Weinstein contends the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception may apply. | No; the appeal is moot and the exception does not apply. |
| Does the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception apply? | Jagow notes post-expiration petition for a new order; no ongoing controversy. | Weinstein argues exception applies due to potential future orders. | The exception does not apply on these facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13 (Ohio 1970) (mootness and avoiding premature judgments; need actual controversy)
- Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237 (Ohio 1910) (outside event may render case moot; exception may apply)
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Donaldson, 63 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 1992) (mootness and exceptions; courts may hear despite mootness in limited circumstances)
- State ex rel. Calvary v. Upper Arlington, 89 Ohio St.3d 229 (Ohio 2000) (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review test details)
- Granville v. Granville, 116 Ohio St.3d 231 (Ohio 2007) (precedent on mootness and docket considerations)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rotches Pork Packers, Inc., 969 F.2d 1384 (2d Cir. 1992) (collateral consequences and mootness relevance in some contexts)