Johnson v. Premo

"If the party arguing against mootness can identify practical effects or collateral consequences that flow from the underlying challenged decision, then the party advocating mootness must show that the effects and consequences identified are either legally insufficient or factually incorrect." Garges v.Premo, 362 Or 797, 802, 421 P3d 345 (2018).

Petitioner appealed denial of a post-judgment motion for a protective order. Petitioner assigned error to the court's denial of his post-trial request for various forms of relief. The superintendent argued that petitioner's retrial rendered the appeal moot. Petitioner argued "the issuance of an order concerning the privileged materials created in the course of his first criminal trial could be important to future litigation."  "If the party arguing against mootness can identify practical effects or collateral consequences that flow from the underlying challenged decision, then the party advocating mootness must show that the effects and consequences identified are either legally insufficient or factually incorrect." Garges v.Premo, 362 Or 797, 802, 421 P3d 345 (2018). The Court found petitioner had not identified any "practical effect or collateral consequence of the sort that our or the Supreme Court's case law has recognized," because petitioner did not demonstrate that the state made use of attorney-client privileged information on petitioner's retrial.  Appeal dismissed as moot.