M. A. C., In re
| Decision Date | 05 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 137-76,137-76 |
| Citation | 134 Vt. 522,365 A.2d 254 |
| Parties | In re M. A. C. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
M. Jerome Diamond, Atty. Gen., Peter M. Bluhm and Alan W. Cook, Asst. Attys. Gen., Montpelier, for plaintiff.
Eugene Rakow, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., and Barry Griffith, Public Defender, Rutland, for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and SMITH, DALEY, LARROW and BILLINGS, JJ.
M. A. C., by order of the District Court of Vermont, Unit No. 1, Rutland Circuit, was involuntarily committed to the care and custody of the Department of Mental Health. 18 V.S.A. § 7601, et seq. On June 22, 1976, M. A. C. was released from the Vermont State Hospital on a conditional discharge, and on August 22, 1976, she received a final discharge. She now appeals the original order of commitment, claiming that 18 V.S.A. § 7606 is unconstitutionally vague and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and further, that the original hearing in the trial court was not timely. 18 V.S.A. § 7605.
In view of the final discharge of M. A. C., any order made here would have no effect on her rights, and the cause is now moot. An appellant's stake in litigation must continue throughout its entirety. This Court will not indulge in advisory opinions. In re Constitutionality of House Bill 88, 115 Vt. 524, 64 A.2d 169 (1949); Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 402, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975).
It is urged upon us in argument that there are exceptions to the doctrine of mootness in other jurisdictions: first, that the appellant will suffer from collateral consequences, In re Ballay, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 59, 482 F.2d 648 (1973); second, that this matter is capable of repetition, yet evading decision, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); third, that this is an issue of great public importance, Matter of Geraghty, 68 N.J. 209, 343 A.2d 737 (1975).
On the record here, none of the exceptions as urged are met or apply. As a matter of fact, the great public importance exception has not been adopted in this jurisdiction.
In view of our disposition of this matter, we do not reach the other claims of error.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
P.S., In re
...on one prior occasion "does not necessarily vitiate the collateral consequences of the contested commitment"); In re M.A.C., 134 Vt. 522, 523, 365 A.2d 254, 255 (1976) (on record before court, mental health commitment case was moot). Second, the exception for situations capable of repetitio......
-
State v. Curry
...an exception to the mootness rule applies." E.S., 2005 VT 33, ¶ 5, 178 Vt. 519, 872 A.2d 356; see also In re M.A.C., 134 Vt. 522, 522-23, 365 A.2d 254, 255 (1976) (per curiam). Further, defendant is not seeking damages, nor is he representing a class of similarly situated parties in this ac......
-
Moriarty, In re
...merit inasmuch as Vermont has not adopted a general public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine. In re M.A.C., 134 Vt. 522, 523, 365 A.2d 254, 255 (1976) (per curiam). Moriarty argues finally that the case has "the earmarks of a constructive discharge," citing In re Bushey, 142 Vt. 2......
-
J. S., In re
...stake in the litigation must continue throughout its entirety, and this Court may not issue advisory opinions. In re M. A. C., 134 Vt. 522, 523, 365 A.2d 254, 255 (1976). However, we recognize an exception to this doctrine for situations which are "capable of repetition, yet evading review.......