是否有(yǒu)合理(lǐ)诉由是一个案件是否具有(yǒu)可(kě)诉性的判断标准之一。如果在案件的审理(lǐ)过程中诉由消失，案件是否还有(yǒu)继续审理(lǐ)的必要。一起學(xué)习美國(guó)宪法下案件可(kě)诉性中的诉由消失理(lǐ)论。
The doctrine of mootness is one of the justiciability doctrines that limit the federal judicial power. This doctrine means that if events after the filing of a lawsuit end the plaintiff’s injury, the case must be dismissed as moot. However, wrongs capable of repetition in their inherently limited time duration, but evading review, are not moot.
在限制联邦司法权的可(kě)诉性理(lǐ)论中有(yǒu)一种理(lǐ)论叫诉由消失理(lǐ)论。诉由消失理(lǐ)论是指在提起诉讼之后，如果某些事件的发生导致原告的损害消失，该案件会因诉由消失而被驳回。然而, 在有(yǒu)限的时间長(cháng)度内，如果错误有(yǒu)不断的重复能(néng)力而能(néng)够逃避审查的，这种错误不构成诉由消失。
Roe filed a lawsuit in 1970 when she was pregnant. She wanted to have an abortion but she couldn’t because of the state statute prohibiting all abortions. She challenged the state statute. By the time the Supreme Court decided the case in January 1973, she was obviously on longer pregnant. The State moved to dismiss on mootness grounds. The Supreme Court said that there might be wrong capable of repetition that could always evade the review because she should get pregnant again in the future and seek an abortion, and the time for human gestation is inherently shorter than the time for human litigation. There was therefore no mootness.
Roe 在1970年提起诉讼，当时她已经怀孕了。她想堕胎，但是因為(wèi)州法禁止堕胎，她无法如愿，故提起诉讼。截至最高院作出判决之时，已经是1973年了，很(hěn)明显她已经不是怀孕状态了。州基于诉由消失要求驳回她的起诉。最高院认為(wèi)该错误有(yǒu)使其逃避审查的重复能(néng)力，因為(wèi)在未来Roe仍可(kě)能(néng)怀孕并再次寻求堕胎，并且人类妊娠期总是短于诉讼期。因此不构成诉由消失。
这种保护性规定值得我们思考，尤其是在一些伤害可(kě)能(néng)反复发生的案件中，比如家庭暴力，虐待家庭成员，校园暴力案件等，如何更好的保护受害人的权益。
作者介绍
延彬彬律师
现為(wèi)上海律宏律师事務(wù)所合伙人律师，民(mín)革党员。先后被评為(wèi)民(mín)革上海市委三八红旗手、民(mín)革普陀區(qū)委先进个人，并在第一届上海律师學(xué)术大赛中获“代理(lǐ)词评选”优秀奖，持有(yǒu)证券从业资格证、上海市知识产权工作者证等。
执业领域：
不良资产处置，企业法律顾问，各类合同纠纷，劳动人事纠纷，婚姻家庭纠纷的处理(lǐ)，刑事案件以及行政案件的处理(lǐ)，医疗器械行业法律服務(wù)等。
执业理(lǐ)念：
每个人都值得拥有(yǒu)自己的私人律师。
微信:
w13764304810
