Rights Advocacy Group v. Town of Long Beach, 173 N.C. App. 180, 182, 617 S.E.2d 715, 717 (2005) (quoting State ex rel. Utils. Comm’n v. Carolina Water Serv., Inc., 149 N.C. Ap s not have the effect of mooting a claim arising under that statute in the event that there is a reasonable possibility that the law will be reenacted following the dismissal of the legal challenge, see City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 71 L. Ed. 2d 152 (1982), followed by Thomas v. North Carolina Dep’t of Human Resources, 124 N.C. App. 698, 478 S.E.2d 816 (1996), or if the repeal of the challenged statute does not provide the injured party with adequate relief or the injured party’s claim remains viable. Lambeth v. Town of Kure Beach, 157 N.C. App. 349, 352, 578 S.E.2d 688, 690 (2003) (<HOLDING>). In this instance, the City’s repeal of former
holding that despite state rules that allow a petitioner to file an appeal out of time a petitioners state postconviction relief was not pending until the petitioner complied with those state procedures to seek an appeal holding that an appeal was not moot because the amendment to the ordinance at bar did not give the petitioner the relief sought so that the petitioners claim and injury remain viable holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim holding that a courts order invalidating part of a city billboard ordinance did not moot a claim for damages arising from that invalidated portion of the ordinance holding that the state court could not procedurally bar a claim through retroactive application of a rule that did not exist at the time the rule would have applied to the petitioners case