a basis for a motion in limine that would prohibit any mention of the hospitalization during the course of another proceeding."); In re Hatley, 291 N.C. 693, 231 S.E.2d 633, 634-35 (1977) (stating evidence of prior commitment order could be used to attack capacity of witness, to impeach witness, to attack character of defendant, and in subsequent commitment proceedings). 16 . In re Walter R., 850 A.2d 346, 349 (Me.2004) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) (2000)). 17 . Peter A. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 146 P.3d 991, 994-95 (Alaska 2006) (internal quotation and citation omitted). See also id. (discussing other cases where court held issue was not moot based on potential collateral consequences); Martin v. Dieringer, 108 P.3d 234, 236 (Alaska 2005) (<HOLDING>); Graham v. State, 633 P.2d 211, 213 (Alaska
holding petition to remove personal representative of estate was not moot because findings were used to dismiss related civil suit based on collateral estoppel holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel holding that collateral estoppel applies to  1983 claims holding that because proceeds of a letter of credit were not secured by estate collateral the proceeds were not property of the estate holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct