Murphy v. Hunt

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsMootnessmootnesspretrial bailcapable of repetition yet evading reviewreasonable expectationdemonstrated probabilityvacatur

Facts

Hunt was charged with first-degree sexual assault on a child and three counts of first-degree forcible sexual assault, and his requests for bail were denied under Article I, § 9, of the Nebraska Constitution. For purposes of his bail application, Hunt's counsel stipulated that the proof was evident and the presumption great. While Hunt's federal § 1983 action challenging the denial of pretrial bail was pending, he was convicted on three offenses and sentenced to prison, and he had sought only declaratory and injunctive relief, not damages or class-wide relief. The Eighth Circuit held the Nebraska provision unconstitutional as applied to persons charged with certain sexual offenses, and the Supreme Court addressed mootness.

Issue

Whether Hunt's federal challenge to Nebraska's denial of pretrial bail remained a live case or controversy after he had been convicted in state court. More specifically, the question was whether the claim fit the exception for controversies capable of repetition, yet evading review.

Rule

A case becomes moot when the issues are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. In the absence of a class action, the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception applies only when (1) the challenged action is too short in duration to be fully litigated before it ends, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation or demonstrated probability that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again; a mere physical or theoretical possibility is not enough.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Omar Vega was denied pretrial release under an Ohio rule barring bail for certain charged offenses. He filed a federal § 1983 suit seeking only a declaration that the rule was unconstitutional and an injunction requiring a new pretrial release hearing. Before the federal court ruled, a state jury convicted him and he began serving his sentence.

What is the strongest argument that the federal case is now moot?

Explanation. A case is moot when the issues are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. A claim specifically seeking pretrial bail or release becomes moot after conviction because success would not entitle the plaintiff to pretrial liberty. The absence of damages and class relief means no remaining personal stake preserves the suit.