2 . “In federal courts the mootness doctrine is grounded primarily in the ‘case or controversy’ requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and has been labeled ‘jurisdictional’ by the United States Supreme Court.” In re Peoples, 296 N.C. at 147, 250 S.E.2d at 912 (1978). “In state courts the exclusion of moot questions from determination is not based on a lack of jurisdiction but rather represents a form of judicial restraint.” Id. at 147, 250 S.E.2d at 912-13. 3 . N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131E-188(a) provides that “any affected person” may contest the CON Section’s decision to “issue, deny, or withdraw a certificate of need or exemption.” See also Hospice at Greensboro, Inc. v. N.C. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., -N.C. App.-,-,-S.E.2d-,-(2007) (COA06-1204) (<HOLDING>). “[A]ny person who provides services, similar
holding that a letter to an opposing party was a paper for purposes of frcp rule 11 where the attorney writing the letter sent a copy to the presiding judge in the case holding that the con sections issuance of a no review letter is an exemption for purposes of nc gen stat  131e188 holding review of district court order imposing sanctions is by application for issuance of a writ of certiorari holding that issuing a letter of counseling and a letter of reprimand was not a materially adverse employment action for purposes of a retaliation claim because the letter contained no abusive language andinstead contained jobrelated constructive criticism which can prompt an employee to improve her performance holding that an unsworn letter was insufficient to contest a claim of exemption