v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 349, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975)). The rationale of the exception is that to “ ‘abandon the case at an advanced stage may prove more wasteful than frugal.’ ” Sviggum, 732 N.W.2d at 322 (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 192, 120 S.Ct. 693, 710, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000)). A. Duration of Challenged Action We first must determine whether the permanent injunction “was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration.” Kahn, 701 N.W.2d at 821. The permanent injunction was in effect for approximately nine months before it expired. This period of time was too short to allow the judicial process to reach conclusion. In fact, the oral argument W.2d 221, 223 n. 1 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the first requirement of Kahn has been
holding that appellant had standing to appeal because it was bound by the judgment even though it did not meet the second requirement holding that challenge to oneyear order for protection was not moot even though it had expired holding that issuance of an order to show cause satisfied this requirement holding that challenge to oneyear residency requirement for divorce action was not moot even though plaintiff had since satisfied requirement holding requirement nonjurisdictional and remanding for a possible eeoc waiver of that requirement