是否有合理诉由是一个案件是否具有可诉性的判断标准之一。如果在案件的审理过程中诉由消失，案件是否还有继续审理的必要。一起学习美国宪法下案件可诉性中的诉由消失理论。
The doctrine of mootness is one of the justiciability doctrines that limit the federal judicial power. This doctrine means that if events after the filing of a lawsuit end the plaintiff’s injury, the case must be dismissed as moot. However, wrongs capable of repetition in their inherently limited time duration, but evading review, are not moot.
在限制联邦司法权的可诉性理论中有一种理论叫诉由消失理论。诉由消失理论是指在提起诉讼之后，如果某些事件的发生导致原告的损害消失，该案件会因诉由消失而被驳回。然而, 在有限的时间长度内，如果错误有不断的重复能力而能够逃避审查的，这种错误不构成诉由消失。
Roe filed a lawsuit in 1970 when she was pregnant. She wanted to have an abortion but she couldn’t because of the state statute prohibiting all abortions. She challenged the state statute. By the time the Supreme Court decided the case in January 1973, she was obviously on longer pregnant. The State moved to dismiss on mootness grounds. The Supreme Court said that there might be wrong capable of repetition that could always evade the review because she should get pregnant again in the future and seek an abortion, and the time for human gestation is inherently shorter than the time for human litigation. There was therefore no mootness.
Roe 在1970年提起诉讼，当时她已经怀孕了。她想堕胎，但是因为州法禁止堕胎，她无法如愿，故提起诉讼。截至最高院作出判决之时，已经是1973年了，很明显她已经不是怀孕状态了。州基于诉由消失要求驳回她的起诉。最高院认为该错误有使其逃避审查的重复能力，因为在未来Roe仍可能怀孕并再次寻求堕胎，并且人类妊娠期总是短于诉讼期。因此不构成诉由消失。
这种保护性规定值得我们思考，尤其是在一些伤害可能反复发生的案件中，比如家庭暴力，虐待家庭成员，校园暴力案件等，如何更好的保护受害人的权益。
作者介绍
延彬彬律师
现为上海律宏律师事务所合伙人律师，民革党员。先后被评为民革上海市委三八红旗手、民革普陀区委先进个人，并在第一届上海律师学术大赛中获“代理词评选”优秀奖，持有证券从业资格证、上海市知识产权工作者证等。
执业领域：
不良资产处置，企业法律顾问，各类合同纠纷，劳动人事纠纷，婚姻家庭纠纷的处理，刑事案件以及行政案件的处理，医疗器械行业法律服务等。
执业理念：
每个人都值得拥有自己的私人律师。
微信:
w13764304810
