Bryan v. Sullivan

1911 OK 362, 119 P. 124, 29 Okla. 686, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 363
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 14, 1911
Docket1476
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 1911 OK 362 (Bryan v. Sullivan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bryan v. Sullivan, 1911 OK 362, 119 P. 124, 29 Okla. 686, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 363 (Okla. 1911).

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

On February 1, 1910, the plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, obtained the issuance of a temporary injunction out of the district court of Comanche county, which on the 7th day o'f February, 1910, was dissolved by order of said court. On March 8, 1910, a proceeding in error was begun in this court to. review the order dissolving the same. On the 21st day of *687 December, 1910, the action in which the temporary injunction was issued and dissolved was tried in said district court, and judgment rendered therein in favor of the defendant.

Defendant in error moves to dismiss this proceeding. The plaintiff in error has neither made any response to this motion nor in any way resisted the dismissal of this proceeding in error on the ground that now only a moot or hypothetical question is involved. The time in which the plaintiff was allowed to make and serve a case-made has expired, without any re-ext'ensión, and no case-made has been made and served. It further appears that no question which could be reviewed by transcript arises on said record. It follows that the only relief that could be awarded now by the determination of this appeal would be in the way of-, costs.

It is a settled holding of this court that it will not decide abstract or hypothetical cases, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no particular result can follow other than an adjudication as to who will pay the costs of the appeal.

The motion to dismiss is therefore sustained.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pitts v. People's Nat. Bank of Checotah
1918 OK 509 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Coburn v. Thornton
164 P. 1012 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1917)
Standard Stone Co. v. Greer
1915 OK 991 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Harrold v. Wichita Falls & N. W. Ry. Co.
1914 OK 419 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Canadian Trading Co. v. Ralls
1914 OK 380 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Wood, Mayor v. Morrisett
1914 OK 398 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Loomer v. Scott
1914 OK 280 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
McCullough v. Gilcrease
1914 OK 248 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Eslick v. Mott
1912 OK 347 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1911 OK 362, 119 P. 124, 29 Okla. 686, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryan-v-sullivan-okla-1911.