Reece v. Chaney

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Reece v. Chaney

1911 OK 105, 114 P. 608, 28 Okla. 501, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 138

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 21, 1911

Docket181

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 1911 OK 105 (Reece v. Chaney) 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

Reece v. Chaney, 1911 OK 105, 114 P. 608, 28 Okla. 501, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 138 (Okla. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

HAYES, J.

It appears from a motion filed herein and the answer thereto, that, since the institution of this proceeding in error, all the matters in controversy involved in this action have been settled between the parties, except the costs of this proceeding, and a decision upon the questions of law raised in this proceeding could not afford any relief to the parties hereto, except to determine who shall pay the cost. It is a well-settled rule in this court that it will not decide abstract or hypothetical questions from which no practical relief will follow. Hodges et al. v. Schafer, 23 Okla. 404, 100 Pac. 537; Albright et al. v. Erickson, 23 Okla. 544, 102 Pac. 112.

The cause is accordingly dismissed.

THENEE, C. J., and DUNN and KANE, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., not participating.

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

HAYES, J.

It appears from a motion filed herein and the answer thereto, that, since the institution of this proceeding in error, all the matters in controversy involved in this action have been settled between the parties, except the costs of this proceeding, and a decision upon the questions of law raised in this proceeding could not afford any relief to the parties hereto, except to determine who shall pay the cost. It is a well-settled rule in this court that it will not decide abstract or hypothetical questions from which no practical relief will follow. Hodges et al. v. Schafer, 23 Okla. 404, 100 Pac. 537; Albright et al. v. Erickson, 23 Okla. 544, 102 Pac. 112.

The cause is accordingly dismissed.

THENEE, C. J., and DUNN and KANE, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK 105, 114 P. 608, 28 Okla. 501, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reece-v-chaney-okla-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack