Muirheid v. Noell

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Muirheid v. Noell

1918 OK 224, 172 P. 435, 68 Okla. 122, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 310

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 16, 1918

Docket9528

StatusPublished

This text of 1918 OK 224 (Muirheid v. Noell) 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

Muirheid v. Noell, 1918 OK 224, 172 P. 435, 68 Okla. 122, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 310 (Okla. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

PER OTJRIAM.

A motion to dismiss this proceeding in error upon the ground that the question involved herein had become purely abstract and hypothetical was overruled- by the court on the 26th day of March, 1918. Subsequently, in presenting another question in a proceeding growing out of the same transaction, wherein the same, counsel appeared for the same parties, it was admitted by counsel for both sides that the question involved herein has become moot and hypothetical.

In pursuance of this admission and agreement of counsel, the former order overrul *123 ing said motion to dismiss is vacated and set aside, and said motion to dismiss is hereby sustained, and said proceeding in error is dismissed at the cost of plaintiff in error, for the reason that the question involved has become abstract and hypothetical.

All the Justices concur.

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

PER OTJRIAM.

A motion to dismiss this proceeding in error upon the ground that the question involved herein had become purely abstract and hypothetical was overruled- by the court on the 26th day of March, 1918. Subsequently, in presenting another question in a proceeding growing out of the same transaction, wherein the same, counsel appeared for the same parties, it was admitted by counsel for both sides that the question involved herein has become moot and hypothetical.

In pursuance of this admission and agreement of counsel, the former order overrul *123 ing said motion to dismiss is vacated and set aside, and said motion to dismiss is hereby sustained, and said proceeding in error is dismissed at the cost of plaintiff in error, for the reason that the question involved has become abstract and hypothetical.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK 224, 172 P. 435, 68 Okla. 122, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muirheid-v-noell-okla-1918.