{
  "id": 1453633,
  "name": "John Michael WRIGHT v. Tommy Sue KEFFER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wright v. Keffer",
  "decision_date": "1995-01-09",
  "docket_number": "94-646",
  "first_page": "201",
  "last_page": "204",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "319 Ark. 201"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "890 S.W.2d 271"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "318 Ark. 173",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1455957
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/318/0173-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-22-309",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 Ark. 170",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1906099
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "and cases cited therein"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "and cases cited therein"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/309/0170-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "886 S.W.2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1455920,
        1455998
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/318/0389-01",
        "/ark/318/0508-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ark. 508",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1455998
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/318/0508-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 Ark. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1742350
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "writ of mandamus for media access to courtroom considered although trial concluded"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "writ of mandamus for media access to courtroom considered although trial concluded"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/281/0152-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 Ark. 262",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1740866
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "writ of habeas corpus considered although petitioner released"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "writ of habeas corpus considered although petitioner released"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/282/0262-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 Ark. 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1886724
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "challenge to election procedure considered although election would be completed before review could be had"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "challenge to election procedure considered although election would be completed before review could be had"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/300/0513-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "410 U.S. 113",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11957048
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "challenge to abortion law considered although pregnancy concluded"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/410/0113-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 Ark. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1914679
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/313/0486-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 551",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 370,
    "char_count": 5302,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.869,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.7404725021159573e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8947552540707971
    },
    "sha256": "2cb96454704c0964d860847e1d055e3837fff5f0f2a95fa8cbf29fcbad7a8a84",
    "simhash": "1:b3aac047246c5cfa",
    "word_count": 862
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:29:57.133828+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Michael WRIGHT v. Tommy Sue KEFFER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice.\nAppellant, John Michael Wright, appeals an order of the Arkansas County Circuit Court, denying his petition for a writ of mandamus directing appellee, Tommy Sue Keffer, as Clerk of the Arkansas County Circuit and Chancery Courts, to disclose information contained in the court\u2019s file of Arkansas County Chancery Court Case No. 93-140, appellant\u2019s divorce case, styled John Michael Wright v. Donna Mary Wright. Jurisdiction of this appeal is properly in this court as it is a case of mandamus directed to a county official or court. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(6). We affirm.\nAppellant filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting appellee to disclose the address of his former wife to whom he was making child support payments through the chancery court clerk\u2019s office. The trial court denied the petition for mandamus ruling that the case was moot, that the relief sought was most likely protected by the Federal Privacy Act, that the suit was frivolous and motivated by vendetta, and that appellant had other remedies available should he become unaware of his former wife\u2019s address in the future.\nAppellant filed this appeal from the denial of his request for a writ of mandamus. Appellant raises four points in his brief. First, he argues the trial court erred in denying the writ of mandamus because the information sought is a matter of pub-lie record. Second, he contends the trial court erred in relying on the Federal Privacy Act, cited to us by the parties only as 5 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 551 et. seq. Third, appellant argues the trial court erred in ruling the case moot. Finally, aside from the merits of the underlying petition for mandamus, appellant raises the issue of an attorney\u2019s fee awarded to appellee. We agree this case is moot and therefore do not address the first two points. This court does not address moot issues. Hempel v. Bragg, 313 Ark. 486, 856 S.W.2d 293 (1993).\nThere was evidence before the trial court that appellant had indeed obtained the information requested in the petition for writ of mandamus. Appellant\u2019s attorney took appellant\u2019s child support payment to appellee\u2019s office and was given a receipt bearing the address of the recipient, appellant\u2019s former wife. The evidence indicated this information may have been released inadvertently by appellee\u2019s staff. Nevertheless, as appellant had obtained the information he sought through the petition for writ of mandamus, the trial court ruled the case moot. We agree this case is moot.\nAn exception is made to the mootness doctrine for cases that are capable of repetition yet evading review, being cases in which the justiciable controversy will necessarily expire or terminate prior to adjudication. Examples of such cases are abortion law challenges, election procedure cases, and cases involving various court procedures. See e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (challenge to abortion law considered although pregnancy concluded); Nathaniel v. Forrest City School Dist. No. 7, 300 Ark. 513, 780 S.W.2d 539 (1989) (challenge to election procedure considered although election would be completed before review could be had); Robinson v. Shock, 282 Ark. 262, 667 S.W.2d 956 (1984) (writ of habeas corpus considered although petitioner released); Arkansas Television Co. v. Tedder, 281 Ark. 152, 662 S.W.2d 174 (1983) (writ of mandamus for media access to courtroom considered although trial concluded).\nAppellant argues we should apply this exception because the address of his former wife may change in the future, hence the case could recur but evade review. Indeed the possibility exists that this case may recur, but it is only a possibility and this court does not anticipate future litigation and does not issue advisory opinions. Walker v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 508, 886 S.W.2d 577 (1994). Moreover, this case, should it recur, will not necessarily evade review, hence the exception urged does not apply.\nIn addition to those cases that evade review, this court has recognized other exceptions to the mootness doctrine, see Arkansas Intercollegiate Conference v. Parnham, 309 Ark. 170, 828 S.W.2d 828 (1992) (and cases cited therein), but none of those exceptions require us to decide the present case.\nAppellant contends the trial court\u2019s award of an attorney\u2019s fee was inappropriate under either ARCP Rule 11 or Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-22-309. The-trial court stated in its order, \u201cRespondent will be awarded attorney\u2019s fees upon furnishing a statement of time and costs.\u201d There is nothing in the record indicating appellee ever submitted a statement of time and costs. Moreover, there is nothing in the record indicating the trial court ever actually awarded an attorney\u2019s fee in this case. The ruling in the order appealed from clearly states that a fee \u201cwill be awarded\u201d upon a specified condition. The condition never occurred and neither did the award. We observe, however, that appellant is not precluded from raising the ARCP Rule 11 issue in the future. Spring Creek Living Center v. Sarrett, 318 Ark. 173, 883 S.W.2d 820 (1994) (per curiam).\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bonner Law Firm, P.A., by: Douglas W. Bonner, for appellant.",
      "Russell D. Berry, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Michael WRIGHT v. Tommy Sue KEFFER\n94-646\n890 S.W.2d 271\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 9, 1995\nBonner Law Firm, P.A., by: Douglas W. Bonner, for appellant.\nRussell D. Berry, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0201-01",
  "first_page_order": 235,
  "last_page_order": 238
}