Hake v. City of Bakersfield

California Court of Appeal

Hake v. City of Bakersfield

121 P.2d 25, 49 Cal. App. 2d 174, 1942 Cal. App. LEXIS 784

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 15, 1942

DocketCiv. 2687

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 121 P.2d 25 (Hake v. City of Bakersfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hake v. City of Bakersfield, 121 P.2d 25, 49 Cal. App. 2d 174, 1942 Cal. App. LEXIS 784 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This was an action attacking the validity of an ordinance of the city of Bakersfield providing for the installation and operation of parking meters on portions of certain streets in that city, and seeking to enjoin and restrain the defendants from operating said parking meters. The court found for the defendants and entered a judgment, from which the plaintiffs appealed.

When this appeal came on for hearing the court was informed that the ordinance in question has been repealed, and it therefore appears that all questions raised have become moot. The only thing argued at the hearing was with respect to the right of the respondents to recover their costs on appeal in the event of a dismissal. We know of no reason for a different rule, with respect to costs, where an appeal is dismissed because the questions raised have become moot than in a case where the appeal is dismissed for other reasons. The usual rule should be applied here (see secs. 955 and 1034 of the Code of Civil Procedure), and it is so ordered.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

THE COURT.

This was an action attacking the validity of an ordinance of the city of Bakersfield providing for the installation and operation of parking meters on portions of certain streets in that city, and seeking to enjoin and restrain the defendants from operating said parking meters. The court found for the defendants and entered a judgment, from which the plaintiffs appealed.

When this appeal came on for hearing the court was informed that the ordinance in question has been repealed, and it therefore appears that all questions raised have become moot. The only thing argued at the hearing was with respect to the right of the respondents to recover their costs on appeal in the event of a dismissal. We know of no reason for a different rule, with respect to costs, where an appeal is dismissed because the questions raised have become moot than in a case where the appeal is dismissed for other reasons. The usual rule should be applied here (see secs. 955 and 1034 of the Code of Civil Procedure), and it is so ordered.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 P.2d 25, 49 Cal. App. 2d 174, 1942 Cal. App. LEXIS 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hake-v-city-of-bakersfield-calctapp-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack