V.I. Gov’t Hosp. & Health Facilities Corp. v. Gov’t of the V.I., 50 V.I. 276, 280 (V.I. 2008) (citing Dennis v. Luis, 741 F.2d 628, 630 (3d Cir. 1984)) “this Court.. . [is] not [an] Article IE court[.]” Arlington Funding v. Geigel, 51 V.I 2d 1095, 1099 (2007) (allowing appeal of expired domestic violence restraining order due to reputational harm and “because it [was] reasonably possible that adverse collateral consequences may occur.”); James v. Hubbard, 21 S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tex. App. 2000) (“Although expired temporary protective orders and restraining orders have been considered moot, none of these cases has carried the same social stigma as a protective order granted based on a finding of family violence”); In re Interest of H.Q., 152 Wis. 2d 701, 449 N.W.2d 75, 77-78 (1989) (<HOLDING>). 5 We note that the first example of counsel
holding that challenge to oneyear order for protection was not moot even though it had expired holding appeal from abuse prevention order not moot due to orders expiration because of collateral consequences including effect in future proceedings and stigma holding that a first amendment challenge to an expired restraining order which had enjoined a rally was not moot holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified a protective order after settlement to permit public access to pretrial materials in spite of a protective order to the contrary which it viewed as having had been initially justified holding expired child abuse protective order not moot because of possible effect on future custody determinations