apply the public-interest exception where the issues presented on appeal involved only questions regarding the sufficiency of the evidence). Second, for the capable-of-repetition exception to be applicable, “there must be a substantial likelihood that the issue presented in the instant case, and any resolution thereof, would have some bearing on a similar issue presented in a subsequent case.” Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d at 360. Respondent does not explain how a resolution of whether the State presented sufficient evidence at this hearing would have any bearing on any subsequent cases involving the involuntary admission or treatment of respondent. Accordingly, respondent has failed to demonstrate that the capable-of-repetition exception is applicable. See Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d at 360 (<HOLDING>). Finally, the collateral-consequences
holding that facts were not disputed because nonmovant failed to contest them with specific sworn evidence as required under rule 56e holding that determination of whether right is clearly established must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case holding that the defendant failed to carry his burden of proving the invalidity of the waivers of counsel for prior colorado convictions holding that the respondent failed to carry his burden of establishing the applicability of the capableofrepetition exception where the respondent disputed only whether the specific facts that were established during the hearing in this specific adjudication were sufficient recognizing that when the facts alleged in the administrative complaint are not disputed this leaves only conclusions of law to be drawn as to whether the admitted facts constitute a violation of the statutes as charged and penalties to be imposed