Moon v. Schwendiman

Court of Appeals of Utah

Moon v. Schwendiman

740 P.2d 822, 63 Utah Adv. Rep. 33, 1987 Utah App. LEXIS 515

CourtCourt of Appeals of Utah

DecidedAugust 10, 1987

DocketNo. 860080-CA

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 740 P.2d 822 (Moon v. Schwendiman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moon v. Schwendiman, 740 P.2d 822, 63 Utah Adv. Rep. 33, 1987 Utah App. LEXIS 515 (Utah Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

GREENWOOD, Judge:

Vicki G. Moon appeals the suspension of her driver’s license and the district court’s affirmance of the suspension. Appellant’s request to have her license reinstated pending this appeal was denied and her license was suspended for ninety days. Appellant seeks reversal of the ninety day suspension of her license.

Preliminarily we must determine whether mootness precludes deciding the issues raised by appellant in this case. In several recent Utah cases, this Court and the Utah Supreme Court have discussed the issue of mootness in the context of driver license

suspensions. Gabbard v. Beach, 736 P.2d 1047 (Utah App.1987); Kehl v. Schwendiman, 735 P.2d 413 (Utah App.1987); Jones v. Schwendiman, 721 P.2d 893 (Utah 1986); Cullimore v. Schwendiman, 652 P.2d 915 (Utah 1982).

In Cullimore and Jones, the Utah Supreme Court refrained from determining the legality of license revocations because the revocation periods had expired by their own terms. However, in Kehl this Court accepted jurisdiction in an appeal initiated by the Department of Public Safety stating “this case presents an issue that affects the public interest, is likely to recur, and because of the brief time anyone is affected is capable of evading review.” Kehl, 735 P.2d at 416. This Court then examined and opined on the issues raised. Subsequently, in Gabbard v. Beach, 736 P.2d at 1031, this Court dismissed, on mootness grounds, an appeal from the ninety day suspension of a driver’s license because the suspension order had expired.

In this case, appellant’s license suspension has expired by its own terms and the requested judicial relief cannot affect appellant’s rights. Furthermore, this case does not present issues which persuade us to accept jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed on grounds of mootness.

BENCH and GARFF, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

GREENWOOD, Judge:

Vicki G. Moon appeals the suspension of her driver’s license and the district court’s affirmance of the suspension. Appellant’s request to have her license reinstated pending this appeal was denied and her license was suspended for ninety days. Appellant seeks reversal of the ninety day suspension of her license.

Preliminarily we must determine whether mootness precludes deciding the issues raised by appellant in this case. In several recent Utah cases, this Court and the Utah Supreme Court have discussed the issue of mootness in the context of driver license

suspensions. Gabbard v. Beach, 736 P.2d 1047 (Utah App.1987); Kehl v. Schwendiman, 735 P.2d 413 (Utah App.1987); Jones v. Schwendiman, 721 P.2d 893 (Utah 1986); Cullimore v. Schwendiman, 652 P.2d 915 (Utah 1982).

In Cullimore and Jones, the Utah Supreme Court refrained from determining the legality of license revocations because the revocation periods had expired by their own terms. However, in Kehl this Court accepted jurisdiction in an appeal initiated by the Department of Public Safety stating “this case presents an issue that affects the public interest, is likely to recur, and because of the brief time anyone is affected is capable of evading review.” Kehl, 735 P.2d at 416. This Court then examined and opined on the issues raised. Subsequently, in Gabbard v. Beach, 736 P.2d at 1031, this Court dismissed, on mootness grounds, an appeal from the ninety day suspension of a driver’s license because the suspension order had expired.

In this case, appellant’s license suspension has expired by its own terms and the requested judicial relief cannot affect appellant’s rights. Furthermore, this case does not present issues which persuade us to accept jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed on grounds of mootness.

BENCH and GARFF, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

740 P.2d 822, 63 Utah Adv. Rep. 33, 1987 Utah App. LEXIS 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moon-v-schwendiman-utahctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack