Loisel v. Rowe
In Loisel v. Rowe, 233 Conn. 370, 378, 660 A.2d 323 (1995), the Court set forth in detail the analysis used in evaluating the applicability of that exception, initially noting that the otherwise moot question must meet three requirements to qualify for review:
"First, the challenged action, or the effect of the challenged action, by its very nature must be of a limited duration so that there is a strong likelihood that the substantial majority of cases raising a question about its validity will become moot before appellate litigation can be concluded. Second, there must be a reasonable likelihood that the question presented in the pending case will arise again in the future, and that it will affect either the same complaining party or a reasonably identifiable group for whom that party can be said to act as surrogate. Third, the question must have some public importance. Unless all three requirements are met, the appeal must be dismissed as moot." Id., 382-83.
The Court recognized in Loisel, "sheer public importance . . . cannot remedy a failure to satisfy the other components of the [mootness exception] doctrine." Id., 387.