Luce v. City of Bristow

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Luce v. City of Bristow

1925 OK 1023, 242 P. 534, 115 Okla. 232, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 317

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 22, 1925

Docket16010

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK 1023 (Luce v. City of Bristow) 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

Luce v. City of Bristow, 1925 OK 1023, 242 P. 534, 115 Okla. 232, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 317 (Okla. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

DICKSON, C.

The plaintiff in error commenced this action in the superior court of Sapulpa to enjoin the defendant and its officers from enforcing a certain ordinance of said city, regulating the licensing of pool halls in said city.

Upon the filing of the petition the court granted a temporary injunction. Later on, upon motion of the defendant in error, the trial court dissolved the temporary injunction, and from this order the plaintiff in error has appealed to this court.

Since the appeal was filed in this court, the ordinance attacked in the proceedings has been repealed, -and a decision now upon the questions presented would in the nature of things be of no particular benefit to either party. Gilbert et al. v. Divelbliss, 40 Okla. 622, 139 Pac. 1132; Massey et al. v. School Dist. No. 58 et al., 101 Okla. 13, 222 Pac. 674. For the reason that the questions *233 presented by this appeal have become moot by the repeal of the ordinance in question, the proceeding in error is dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Note. — See under (1) 3 O. J. p. 364, § 118; 2 R. C. L. p. 169; 1 R. O. L. Supp. p. 424; 4 R. C. L. Supp. p. 87; 5 R. C. L. Supp. p. 77.

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

Opinion by

DICKSON, C.

The plaintiff in error commenced this action in the superior court of Sapulpa to enjoin the defendant and its officers from enforcing a certain ordinance of said city, regulating the licensing of pool halls in said city.

Upon the filing of the petition the court granted a temporary injunction. Later on, upon motion of the defendant in error, the trial court dissolved the temporary injunction, and from this order the plaintiff in error has appealed to this court.

Since the appeal was filed in this court, the ordinance attacked in the proceedings has been repealed, -and a decision now upon the questions presented would in the nature of things be of no particular benefit to either party. Gilbert et al. v. Divelbliss, 40 Okla. 622, 139 Pac. 1132; Massey et al. v. School Dist. No. 58 et al., 101 Okla. 13, 222 Pac. 674. For the reason that the questions *233 presented by this appeal have become moot by the repeal of the ordinance in question, the proceeding in error is dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Note. — See under (1) 3 O. J. p. 364, § 118; 2 R. C. L. p. 169; 1 R. O. L. Supp. p. 424; 4 R. C. L. Supp. p. 87; 5 R. C. L. Supp. p. 77.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK 1023, 242 P. 534, 115 Okla. 232, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luce-v-city-of-bristow-okla-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack