The Nebraska Supreme Court issued a ruling Thursday in *Flinn v. Strode* that clarifies when appeals of harassment protection orders become moot after the orders expire, establishing important precedent for future appellate review of protective order cases.
The consolidated cases, numbered S-25-064 and S-25-065, involved appellee Jordyn Flinn and appellants Adam Strode and Amy Strode. The court addressed fundamental questions about mootness doctrine as it applies to expired harassment protection orders.
In its opinion, cited as 320 Neb. 813, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that "the expiration of a harassment protection order renders an appeal from its issuance and affirmance moot." The court emphasized that moot cases are subject to dismissal, establishing a clear standard for lower courts and practitioners handling similar appeals.
The ruling provides crucial guidance on appellate court authority in mootness determinations. The court held that "a mootness determination that does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law, which an appellate court determines independent of the lower court's decisions."
This principle extends beyond protection order cases. The court noted that "when an appeal calls for statutory interpretation or presents questions of law, an appellate court must reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below."
The Nebraska Supreme Court also addressed the public interest exception to mootness doctrine, which can allow courts to hear cases that would otherwise be dismissed as moot. The court established a three-part test for determining when this exception applies, requiring appellate courts to consider "(1) the public or private nature of the question presented, (2) the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for the guidance of public officials, and (3) the likelihood of recurrence of [the issue]."
While the specific facts underlying Flinn's requests for protection orders against the Strodes were not detailed in the available excerpts, the procedural posture suggests that protection orders were initially granted at the trial court level, affirmed on appeal, but had since expired by the time the case reached the state's highest court.
The timing of appeals in protection order cases has become increasingly important as courts balance the urgent need for protective relief against the lengthy appellate process. Harassment protection orders are typically granted for limited periods, often creating situations where the underlying orders expire before appellate review can be completed.
The court's ruling provides clarity for practitioners handling protection order appeals, establishing that expiration generally renders such appeals moot unless the public interest exception applies. This standard could significantly impact how attorneys approach the timing and strategy of protection order appeals in Nebraska.
The decision also reinforces appellate court independence in legal determinations. By emphasizing that mootness determinations involving questions of law are made independently of lower court decisions, the Nebraska Supreme Court has clarified the scope of appellate review authority.
For courts handling protection order cases, the ruling provides guidance on when continued adjudication serves the public interest despite mootness. The three-factor test gives judges a framework for determining whether exceptional circumstances warrant hearing expired protection order appeals.
The consolidated nature of the Flinn cases, involving protection orders against two different defendants, may have influenced the court's comprehensive treatment of mootness doctrine. Having multiple related cases likely provided the court with a broader factual context for establishing these precedential standards.
Legal practitioners expect the ruling to influence how protection order cases are managed from filing through potential appeal. The clear mootness standard may encourage more expedited appellate review in cases where protection orders remain active, while also providing guidance for dismissing cases where orders have expired without public interest implications.
The Nebraska Supreme Court's analysis of the public interest exception suggests that not all expired protection order appeals will be dismissed as moot. Cases involving novel legal questions, unclear statutory interpretation, or issues likely to recur may still warrant appellate review even after order expiration.
The ruling comes as courts nationwide grapple with balancing efficient case management against the need for thorough appellate review in protection order cases. Nebraska's approach provides a model for other jurisdictions considering similar mootness challenges.
The decision was filed February 6, 2026, and will be published in volume 320 of Nebraska Reports. The full text of the opinion will provide additional context on the specific circumstances that led to this appellate review and the court's detailed reasoning for its mootness determination.