Appellate jurisdiction; Mootness; Equity Funding, Inc v Village of Milford; Whether a controversy remains where a competitor obtained a certificate of occupancy & a marijuana business license invoking a 1,000-foot buffer; Exception to mootness for issues of public significance likely to recur yet evade review; In re Tchakarova; Authorities regarding competitive licensing; Cary Invs, LLC v City of Mount Pleasant

Holding that the appeal was moot because the court could fashion no relief once a nearby competitor received a certificate of occupancy and a marijuana business license, thereby triggering the ordinance’s 1,000-foot buffer, the court affirmed the grant of summary disposition to defendants. Plaintiff sought mandamus, superintending control, and injunctive relief over defendant’s handling of its retail-marijuana application. The court noted that by the time the planning commission or the city council addressed plaintiff’s application, a competitor had already secured a certificate of occupancy (and later a license), which “effectively secured the buffer” and precluded any other retailer “within 1,000 feet.” The court reiterated that an “‘issue is moot when this Court’s decision can have no practical effect on a controversy or it is impossible for this Court to fashion a remedy.’” Here, any order compelling further review would still be blocked by the buffer and by a separate injunction that barred action inconsistent with defendant’s buffer rules. The court declined to invoke the public-interest/evading-review exception, noting plaintiff applied knowing competitors were a year ahead, received a planning-commission recommendation, and defendant’s city council “engaged in an 18-minute discussion” and gave reasons for denial. Moreover, ordinance amendments clarified the application consideration sequence and left no live controversy. Because no effective relief could be granted, the court declined “to consider the substantive issues of this case,” and the appeal was dismissed as moot.