656, 658, 562 S.E.2d 60, 62-63 (2002) (internal quotation omitted)). “Whenever, during the course of litigation it develops that the relief sought has been granted or that the questions originally in controversy between the parties are no longer at issue, the case should be dismissed, for courts will not entertain or proceed with a cause merely to determine abstract propositions of law.” In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 147-48, 250 S.E.2d 890, 912 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 929, 61 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1979). As a general proposition, the “[r]epeal of a challenged law generally renders moot the issue of the law’s interpretation or constitutionality.” See Property Rights Advocacy, 173 N.C. App. at 183, 617 S.E.2d at 718 (citing State v. McCluney, 280 N.C. 404, 407, 185 S.E.2d 870, 872 (1972) (<HOLDING>). However, the repeal of a challenged statute
holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding that the lack of any ongoing appeal of weeks conviction renders moot the question of bail pending direct appeal recognizing that the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review holding appeal moot on this basis holding that the repeal of a statute renders moot the question of its constitutionality and that the constitutionality of the new act does not arise on this appeal and    will be decided if and when it is presented