present, live controversy of the kind that must exist if we are to avoid advisory opinions on abstract questions of law.” St. Louis Fire Fighters Ass’n, 96 F.3d at 329. While voluntary cessation of the alleged conduct does not make the case moot, the case is moot when “there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur, and ... interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” Id. Wdien this occurs, “neither party has a legally cognizable interest in the final determination of the underlying questions of fact and law.” Id. [¶ 11] The trial court erred in finding the easement created essentially the same relief the Tiberts were seeking. The newly-created easement is more limited than .2d 1006, 1012 (La.2003) (<HOLDING>); C.J.S. Dedication § 2, 280 (2001) (common-law
holding an implied dedication gives rise to a servitude of public use and does not transfer ownership holding that the term sold  requires both a transfer of ownership to an unrelated party and consideration holding that the failure to act in good faith  does not amount to an independent tort the breach of the implied duty under the ucc gives rise only to a cause of action for breach of contract holding that term sold requires both a transfer of ownership to an unrelated party and consideration holding that an assertion of nominative use gives rise to a modified likelihood of confusion analysis