evading review and (2) is sues that raise considerations of substantial public interest which, if addressed, might prevent future litigation”); Doe v. Doe, 116 Hawaii 323, 172 P.3d 1067, 1071 n. 4 (2007) (noting the public interest and capable of repetition yet evading review exceptions are ‘“separate and distinct’”); Koch v. Canyon County, 145 Idaho 158, 177 P.3d 372, 377 (2008) (acknowledging exceptions to mootness doctrine “ ‘(1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue raises concerns of substantial public interest’ ”); Smith v. Hannaford Brothers Co., 940 A.2d 1079, 1081 (Me.2008) (<HOLDING>); DeCoteau v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co., 636
holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern holding that questions of public interest originally encompassed in an action should be decided for future guidance 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  recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern recognizing two exceptions where the court may address issues despite mootness