Ryan v. Geiger

California Court of Appeal

Ryan v. Geiger

61 P.2d 362, 17 Cal. App. 2d 4, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 513

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 9, 1936

DocketCiv. No. 10031

StatusPublished

This text of 61 P.2d 362 (Ryan v. Geiger) 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

Ryan v. Geiger, 61 P.2d 362, 17 Cal. App. 2d 4, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 513 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

STURTEVANT, J.

The plaintiff commenced a proceeding asking for a writ of mandamus directing the defendant as director of health to issue to the plaintiff a permit to conduct a stable. The court made findings in favor of the defendant. From the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff appealed. The judgment so appealed from was entered April 23, 1935. The judgment was entered March 20, 1935, in the case entitled People v. James J. Ryan, No. 10032 (ante, p. 1 [61 Pac. (2d) 360]), this day filed. By reason of the conclusion which we have reached in the case cited, all questions involved in the instant case have become moot. Therefore the appeal should be dismissed. (2 Cal. Jur. 123.)

It is so ordered.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

STURTEVANT, J.

The plaintiff commenced a proceeding asking for a writ of mandamus directing the defendant as director of health to issue to the plaintiff a permit to conduct a stable. The court made findings in favor of the defendant. From the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff appealed. The judgment so appealed from was entered April 23, 1935. The judgment was entered March 20, 1935, in the case entitled People v. James J. Ryan, No. 10032 (ante, p. 1 [61 Pac. (2d) 360]), this day filed. By reason of the conclusion which we have reached in the case cited, all questions involved in the instant case have become moot. Therefore the appeal should be dismissed. (2 Cal. Jur. 123.)

It is so ordered.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 P.2d 362, 17 Cal. App. 2d 4, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-geiger-calctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack