• . In Cotten v. Fooks, 346 Ark. 130, 133-34, 55 S.W.3d 290, 292 (2001), we explained, . [a]s a general rule, the -appellate courts of this state will not review issues that are moot. See Forrest Constr., Inc. v. Milam, 345 Ark. 1, 43 S.W.3d 140 (2001); Dillon v. Twin City Bank, 325 Ark. 309, 924 S.W.2d 802 (1996). To-do so-would be to render advisory opinions, which this court will not do. McCuen v. McGee, 315 Ark. 561, 868 S.W.2d 503 (1994). We have generally held that a ease becomes moot when any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon a then-existing legal | controversy. See Forrest Constr., Inc. v. Milam, supra; Quinn v. Webb Wheel Products, 334 Ark. 573, 976 S.W.2d 386 (1998); Dillon v. Twin City Bank, supra. This court has recognized two exceptions to (1990) (<HOLDING>); Owens v. Taylor, 299 Ark. 373, 772 S.W.2d 596
holding question of citys exercise of due care in enforcement of ordinance was question of fact and inappropriate for summary judgment recognizing that the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact holding that the question of the constitutionality of arkansass judgment enforcement statutes was a substantial question that merited review despite mootness of actual controversy holding it is a question of fact