O.I.C.L., a Minor Child v. Florida Department of Children and Families
Supreme Court of Florida
1DissentLabarga, C.J.
Although O.I.C.L. has already reached majority age, “[i]t is well settled that mootness does not destroy an appellate court’s jurisdiction ... when the questions raised are of great public importance or are likely to recur.” Del Valle v. State, 80 So.3d 999, 1005 (Fla.2011) (quoting Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 218 n. 1 (Fla.1984)). The prevalence of seventeen-year-old unaccompanied minors seeking adjudications of dependency presents precisely the type of situation that is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 *580(1973)…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Holly v. AuldSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
- Del Valle v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2011
- GC v. Department of Children and FamiliesDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.