In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Mark v.

Summary

The court dismissed Mark V.'s appeal as moot because his involuntary commitment had expired and the collateral-consequences exception did not apply. Mark had multiple prior commitment orders, challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence, identified no procedural or fundamental defect, and failed to show that the challenged order created additional collateral consequences. The court also held that the statutory right to appeal did not supersede the judicial mootness doctrine and declined to vacate the expired order. STOWERS, Justice, dissenting, would have reached the merits of every involuntary commitment appeal or adopted a rebuttable presumption of collateral consequences.