Personhood Nevada v. Bristol
126 Nev. 599
| Nev. | 2010Background
- Personhood Nevada filed a ballot initiative to amend Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution;
- District court held the initiative violated NRS 295.009 single-subject rule and enjoined placement on the ballot;
- Deadline for submitting initiative signatures passed without signatures submitted, making the initiative ineligible for the 2010 ballot;
- The 2010 general election occurred without the initiative being voted on;
- This appeal is moot; the court addresses whether issue preclusion applies despite mootness and concludes it does not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot, given signatures were not submitted and the election occurred? | Appellants argue mootness exemption may apply due to repetition. | Respondents contend the case is moot with no effective relief. | Yes, moot; no effective relief. |
| Should the district court's order be vacated to avoid preclusion in future petitions? | Vacatur is appropriate to prevent collateral consequences. | No vacatur necessary; no preclusive effect. | Vacatur not necessary; no preclusive effect. |
| Does issue preclusion apply to the district court's order when an appeal is moot? | Lower court findings should have preclusive effect in future challenges. | Mootness defeats preclusion; policy favors no preclusion. | No preclusion; Restatement approach adopted. |
| Does the Restatement (Second) of Judgments govern preclusion when an appeal is moot? | Argues for Restatement approach to avoid preclusion. | Agreeing with the Restatement approach supports no preclusion. | Restatement approach adopted; no preclusive effect. |
| Should the court address potential capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review and future initiatives? | Issue could recur with similar initiatives. | Speculative and not likely to evade review; not essential to decide. | Not addressed as the exception does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- NCAA v. University of Nevada, 97 Nev. 56, 624 P.2d 10 (Nev. 1981) (mootness and justiciability principles apply to controversies.)
- We the People Nevada v. Secretary of State, 124 Nev. 874, 192 P.3d 1166 (Nev. 2008) (expedited handling of ballot-related issues; relevance to election timing.)
- Langston v. State, Dep't of Mtr. Vehicles, 110 Nev. 342, 871 P.2d 362 (Nev. 1994) (discusses mootness and relief standards.)
- Ulmer v. Alaska Restaurant & Beverage Ass'n, 33 P.3d 773 (Alaska 2001) (dismissal of moot-issue appeal; no exception applied.)
- Kerr v. Bradbury, 340 Or. 241, 131 P.3d 737 (Or. 2006) (mootness and petition viability; dismissal.)
- Commissioner of Motor Vehicles v. DeMilo & Co., 233 Conn. 254, 659 A.2d 148 (Conn. 1995) (Restatement-based approach to collateral consequences of moot judgments.)