this case was scheduled for a date approximately six months after the permanent injunction had expired. The procedural posture of this case is comparable to that of Madonna, in which the plaintiffs challenged their confinements while awaiting a hearing to determine whether they should be committed to mental institutions. 295 N.W.2d at 358. The plaintiffs filed petitions for habeas corpus during their pre-hearing confinements, which lasted only a matter of weeks, but the petitions were not adjudicated before their pre-hearing confinements ended. Id. at 358-59. Approximately two and one-half years later, the supreme court held that the case was not moot, reasoning that “some method of review must exist.” Id. at 361; see also Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206, 208 n. 2 (Minn.2001) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. Davis, 297 Minn. 187, 188 n. 1, 210
holding that challenge to oneyear order for protection was not moot even though it had expired holding that district court may award money due under a statute even though time for disbursement had expired holding that challenge to oneyear residency requirement for divorce action was not moot even though plaintiff had since satisfied requirement holding expired child abuse protective order not moot because of possible effect on future custody determinations holding that a first amendment challenge to an expired restraining order which had enjoined a rally was not moot