(1996)). “Courts will not entertain such cases because it is not the responsibility of courts to decide abstract propositions of law.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Conversely, when a court’s determination can have a practical effect on a controversy, the court may not dismiss the case as moot.” Id. In determining whether plaintiffs’ claims may be considered moot, we are bound by Goldston. Because we hold that plaintiffs have standing to pursue a declaratory judgment regarding the Board’s authority to establish year-round schools and to assign students to those schools on a mandatory basis, the fact that individual plaintiffs have been reassigned does not address the unsettled controversy concerning the Board’s authority. See Goldston, 361 N.C. at 34-35, 637 S.E.2d at 882 (<HOLDING>). Stated differently, the plaintiffs’
holding that because plaintiffs would be able to file their case in colombia  plaintiffs concerns as to their safety are more appropriately considered in the private interest factors analysis holding that a case under the declaratory judgments act remains a live controversy even if all requests for substantive declaratory relief become moot during the actions pendency as long as a claim for attorneys fees under the act remains pending holding that plaintiffs were not released from the exclusive remedial framework of the csra when their claims arose from their federal employment even though the csra provided plaintiffs with no remedy holding that if undisclosed evidence might have affected the disposition of the summary judgment motion the plaintiffs chose not to disclose the basis of their claim and they did so at their own risk holding declaratory judgment remains an appropriate remedy despite plaintiffs abandoning their claim to compel return of the challenged assets because if plaintiffs ultimately prevail their point is made