that gave rise to the initial controversy are capable of repetition while evading review”) (quoting Sullivan, 703 A.2d at 752). Although we apparently adhere to a merger of the two exceptions, other jurisdictions recognize the exceptions as distinct from one another. See, e.g., Sanford v. Murdoch, 374 Ark. 12 (2008) (highlighting two exceptions to the mootness doctrine as “(1) issues that are capable of repetition, .2d 432, 437 (N.D.2001) (“Issues characterized as moot may nonetheless be decided by this Court if the controversy is capable of repetition, yet evading review, or if the controversy is one of great public interest and involves the power and authority of public officials.” (emphasis added)); Sloan v. Friends of the Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 630 S.E.2d 474, 478 (2006) (<HOLDING>). The critical factor here that warrants the
recognizing two exceptions where the court may address issues despite mootness recognizing three exceptions to the mootness doctrine including when  the appeal contains questions of great public concern that in the interest of providing future guidance to the bar and the public we may address or    the issues are capable of repetition but evade review because of their fleeting or determinate nature  holding appellate court need not address issues unnecessary to its decision holding that subject to limited exceptions this court will not consider issues not presented to the district court but raised for the first time on appeal holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues when disposition of a prior issue is dispositive