 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Frazier11/18/1999
litigation has become moot; there is an absence of adverse parties; or the judicial act could not give finality to the controversy. See 3 Chester James Antieau & William J. Rich, Modern Constitutional Law § 48.27 (2d ed. 1997). In this case, we are precluded from ruling on the question presented on appeal because (1) the issue raised by the State is moot and (2) the case is absent "adverse" parties.
A case becomes moot when the issues initially presented in litigation ceases to exist or when the court's ruling would have no practical effect on the parties. See County of Shelby v. McWherter, 936 S.W.2d at 931; McIntyre v. Traughber, 884 S.W.2d 134, 147 (Tenn. App. 1994). A court is not empowered "to declare, for the government of future cases, principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it." See United States v. Alaska Steamship Company, 253 U.S. 113, 116, 40 S.Ct. 448, 449 (1920). Indeed, "the power of the courts . . . to pass upon the constitutionality of [legislation] arises only when the interests of litigants require the use of this judicial authority for their protection against actual interference." See United Public Workers of America (C.I.O.) v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 89, 67 S.Ct. 556, 564 (1947) (emphasis added).
In the case before this court, the trial court's pronouncement finding subsection (n) unconstitutional had no effect on the State or the appellee. Accordingly, the court's ruling was adverse to neither. The appellee was sentenced under the same DUI sentencing provisions as would have applied to any first time offender in a county other than Davidson. The State cannot complain because the appellee was sentenced as provided by law. While a decision regarding the statute's constitutionality could be given, this would merely be a hypothetical ruling as between these parties. The only effect of the trial court's finding that subsection (n) is unconstitutional is to deny first time DUI offenders in Davidson County the benefit of the public service exception. However, the impact of this decision is of no legal consequence as the circuit court's opinion merely constitutes persuasive authority and is not binding, under the theory of stare decisis, upon other judicial circuits, including the Twentieth Judicial District (Davidson County).
An appellate court will not pass on lawsuits when there is no justiciable controversy presented, or render advisory opinions on questions which are premature. See State v. Rogers, 703 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985) (citations omitted). The doctrine of justiciability prompts courts to stay their hand in cases that do not involve a genuine and existing controversy requiring the present adjudication of present rights. See McIntyre v. Traughber, 884 S.W.2d at 137 (citing State ex. rel Lewis v. State, 208 Tenn. 534, 537, 347 S.W.2d 47, 48 (1961); Dockery v. Dockery, 559 S.W.2d 952, 954 (Tenn. App. 1977)). Thus, this court declines the opportunity to render a mere advisory opinion in this matter, Super Flea Mkt. v. Olsen, 677 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tenn. 1984); Parks v. Alexander, 608 S.W.2d 881, 892 (Tenn. App. 1980), or decide an abstract legal question. State ex. rel Lewis v. State, 208 Tenn. at 538, 347 S.W.2d at 49.
For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of this appeal will be paid by the State of Tennessee.
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR: GARY R. WADE, Presiding Judge DAVID H. WELLES, Judge
Page 1 2 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|