Editing Mootness (section)

===Capable of repetition, yet evading review===
A court will allow a case to go forward if it is the type for which persons will frequently be faced with a particular situation, but will likely cease to be in a position where the court can provide a remedy for them in the time that it takes for the justice system to address their situation. The most frequently cited example is the 1973 United States Supreme Court case of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', {{ussc|410|113|1973}}, which challenged a [[Texas]] law forbidding [[abortion]] in most circumstances. The state argued that the case was moot because plaintiff [[Norma McCorvey|Roe]] was no longer pregnant by the time the case was heard.  As [[Harry Blackmun|Justice Blackmun]] wrote in the majority opinion:

<blockquote>The normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid.</blockquote>

By contrast, in ''[[McCorvey v. Hill]]'', 2004, the case failed to proceed based on being moot, without [[standing (law)|standing]] and out of time.<ref>[[Statute of limitations]].</ref>

The Court cited ''[[Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC]]'', {{ussc|219|498|1911}}, which had held that a case was not moot when it presented an issue that was "capable of repetition, yet evading review". Perhaps in response to increasing workloads at all levels of the judiciary, the recent trend in the Supreme Court and other U.S. courts has been to construe this exception rather narrowly.{{Citation needed|date=December 2009}}

Many cases fall under the "capable of repetition" doctrine; however, because there is a review process available under most circumstances, the exception to declaring mootness did not apply to such cases.  In ''Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft'', 436 U. S. 1, 8–9 (1978), the court noted that claims for [[damages]] save cases from mootness.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-351.pdf |title=Slip: ''Alvarez v. Smith'' (2009)}}</ref>