Quote:
|
She could not become pregnant with THAT pregnancy again. The court cannot assume she would become pregnant again, or even that she would want to terminate any successive pregnancy.
|
No, but I have seen at least one case where the court said that the particular plaintiff could not find himself in that position again so it did not meet the exception for mootness; the fact it could happen to someone else was not enough. In
Roe, it was at least possible for the event to reoccur for that particular plaintiff. Here is what the Supreme Court said about standing/mootness regarding Plaintiff Roe:
Quote:
|
But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, 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. Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It truly could be "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911). See Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 816 (1969); Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 178-179 (1968); United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632-633 (1953).
|
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...0_0113_ZO.html (emphasis added).
Again, I do not know the answer but I think that mootness/standing is at least an issue that would have to be resolved if the litigation were still ongoing when the plaintiff turns 21..