State v. Evans, 2012 ND 10

G.K.S. was involuntarily committed for up to 90 days based on a district court finding of chemical dependency and need for treatment.
Dr. Madeline Free petitioned for involuntary commitment; a hearing under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-19 occurred on November 30, 2011.
The district court found clear and convincing evidence of alcohol dependency and that G.K.S. required treatment at the State Hospital.
Dr. Free filed a notice of release after G.K.S. was ordered hospitalized; G.K.S. was released December 15, 2011.
The district court granted dismissal of the 90-day treatment order on December 22, 2011, while G.K.S.’s expedited appeal was pending.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the underlying involuntary commitment order was vacated by the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the appeal moot after dismissal of the commitment order?	G.K.S. contends the petition and findings remain live issues.	State concedes the order was vacated and the appeal becomes moot.	Appeal dismissed as moot.
If not moot, was there sufficient evidence to support commitment findings?	G.K.S. asserts no clear and convincing evidence supported dependency and need for treatment.	State concedes insufficiency of evidentiary basis on record.	Not reached; mootness disposed of appeal

In re Guardianship/Conservatorship of Van Sickle, 2005 ND 69 (ND (2005)) (mootness threshold and public interest considerations)
In re D.P.O., 2005 ND 39 (ND (2005)) (mootness and threshold issues)
In re E.T., 2000 ND 174 (ND (2000)) (no actual controversy when issues become moot)
Millang v. Hahn, 1998 ND 152 (ND (1998)) (collateral consequences as exception to mootness)
Varnson v. Satran, 368 N.W.2d 533 (ND (1985)) (mootness definition; practical effect required)
Matter of Contempt of Grajedas, 515 N.W.2d 444 (ND (1994)) (principles on mootness and review)
In re Guardianship/Conservatorship of Van Sickle, 694 N.W.2d 212 (ND (2005)) (mootness and collateral consequences analyses)