holding that the appeal was not moot under this exception where the appeal concerned the authority of the city to adopt ordinances creating development districts with certain development guidelines
How later courts described this case
- holding that the appeal was not moot under this exception where the appeal concerned the authority of the city to adopt ordinances creating development districts with certain development guidelines
- "we believe that although the instant matter is technically moot with respect to the plaintiffs, there still remains a debatable constitutional question for this court to resolve. In addition, we believe that the cause sub judice involves matters of great public interest, thereby vesting this court with jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, even though the controversy is moot with respect to the plaintiffs. Thus, we proceed to resolve this matter under the standard that although a case may be moot with respect to one of the litigants, this court may hear the appeal where there remains a debatable constitutional question to resolve, or where the matter appealed is one of great public or general interest"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wright, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. In my view this case has little public or general interest since it involves a “one of a kind” situation vis-a-vis the appellees and the city of Cincinnati which effectively resolved the controversy by purchasing appellee Lipson’s property. The facts in the case when viewed in toto as opposed to the precis form presented by the majority negate the possibility that this case can be treated as authority for anything aside from the broad propositions contained in the syllabus which are universally accepted law.
Thus, while I concur in the syllabus law promulgated in the majority opinion, I respectfully suggest that this appeal should have been dismissed as moot when appellees noticed this court that they were withdrawing from this appeal.