T.C.T. v. Shafinia
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1211
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Protection order issued 3/30/2010 prohibiting contact for one year; order was not renewed.
- Appellant Kevin Shafinia challenged the adequacy of the evidence supporting the order.
- Respondent T.C.T. moves to dismiss or affirm mootness issues since the order expired.
- Appellate review for mootness is sua sponte; live controversy required for jurisdiction.
- Court held that the case is moot because the protection order expired and no collateral consequences were shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of the appeal due to expired order | Shafinia argues the evidence supports the order | Order expired; no live controversy remains | Appeal is moot and must be dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Inman v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 139 S.W.3d 180 (Mo.App. W.D. 2004) (mootness and live controversy principles in prison context (sua sponte))
- Lamar Co., LLC v. City of Kansas City, 330 S.W.3d 767 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010) (live controversy requirement; public interest exception considered)
- In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co.'s Proposed Revision to Gen. Exch. Tariff, P.S.C., 18 S.W.3d 575 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) (tariff revision mootness; general proposition on mootness)
- Royster v. Rizzo, 326 S.W.3d 104 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010) (public policy and mootness guidance in absence of live issue)
- K.D. v. Alosi, 292 S.W.3d 616 (Mo.App. W.D. 2009) (mootness where protective order lapses; lack of collateral consequences)
- Stiers v. Bernicky, 174 S.W.3d 551 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (public interest exception not invoked here)
- M.W. v. Mabry, 282 S.W.3d 33 (Mo.App. E.D. 2009) (sufficiency challenges to lapsed orders generally not of public interest)