Cited by

therwise moot, such as “where there is a pressing public interest involved or future litigation may be avoided,” In re Guardianship of R.A., 155 N.H. 98, 101 (2007) (statutory amendment rendered issue moot), or where the 3 case “presents an issue capable of repetition, yet evading review,” Fischer v. Superintendent, Strafford County House of Corrections, 163 N.H. 515, 518 (2012) (quotation omitted).

RSA 651:5, I. Although the interpretation of a trial court order presents a question of law, which we review de novo, see Fischer v. Superintendent, Strafford County House of Corrections, 163 N.H. 515, 519 (2012), we are unable to discern the statutory grounds upon which the trial court denied the defendant’s petitions.

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1679 (unabridged ed. 2002) (defining “perhaps” as “possibly but not certainly: MAYBE”); Fischer v. Superintendent, Strafford County House of Corrections, 163 N.H. 515, 519 (2012) (stating that we interpret trial court orders de novo).

House of Corr., 163 N.H. 515, 519 (2012) (stating interpretation of trial court order is question of law, which we review de novo).

Fischer v. Superintendent, Strafford County House of Corrections, 163 N.H. 515, 519 (2012) (stating that we interpret trial court orders de novo).

Fischer v. Superintendent, Strafford County House of Corrections, 163 N.H. 515, 519 (2012) (stating interpretation of court order is question of law that we review de novo).

Fischer v. Superintendent, Strafford County House of Corrections, 163 N.H. 515, 519 (2012) (stating interpretation of trial court order is question of law, which we review de novo.)

Fischer v. Superintendent, Strafford County House of Corrections, 163 N.H. 515, 519 (2012) (stating interpretation of court order is question of law, which we review de novo).

Fischer v. Superintendent, Strafford County House of Corrections, 163 N.H. 515, 519 (2012).

See, e.g., Carter, 167 N.H. at 164-65 (stating pre-indictment discovery issues are capable of repetition, yet evading review because subsequent indictment normally takes far less time than appeal); Fischer v. Superintendent, Strafford County House of Corrections, 163 N.H. 515, 518 (2012) (stating pre- conviction bail issues are capable of repetition, yet evading review because decisions regarding pre-trial detention may not be reached until shortly before trial, at which point value of pre-trial

Rather, the trial court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to allege that “such specific plan [was] even proposed at the time the parties entered the Easement Deed.” See Fischer v. Superintendent, Strafford County House of Corrections, 163 N.H. 515, 519 (2012) (stating interpretation of court order is question of law, which we review de novo).

Fischer v. Superintendent, Strafford County House of Corrections, 163 N.H. 515, 519 (2012) (interpretation of court order is subject to de novo review).

2 indictment after the case is bound over to superior court normally is far less than the time required for briefing, argument and decision in this court, we find that this case satisfies the familiar exception to the mootness doctrine for cases that “are capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Fischer v. Superintendent, Strafford County House of Corrections, 163 N.H. 515, 518 (2012) (quotation omitted).