State ex rel. Craig v. Pyle

Missouri Court of Appeals

State ex rel. Craig v. Pyle

536 S.W.2d 523, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2730

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 26, 1976

DocketNo. 10335

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 536 S.W.2d 523 (State ex rel. Craig v. Pyle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Craig v. Pyle, 536 S.W.2d 523, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2730 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PRELIMINARY RULE IN PROHIBITION QUASHED

TITUS, Judge.

Our preliminary rule in prohibition went down on a petition which alleged that the respondent circuit judge pretended jurisdiction to restrain and enjoin the relators herein as members of the city council of the City of Joplin from “Bringing Council Bill No. 76-30 up for final reading.” Albright v. Fisher, 164 Mo. 56, 64 S.W. 106 (banc 1901). After our preliminary rule intervened to prohibit respondent from restraining and enjoining said action, so we are advised by stipulation of the parties, the relators met and voted against adoption of said council bill, thus effectively rendering moot relators’ plea for relief. To continue to press our writ against the respondent would be useless. State ex rel. Drain v. Schoenlaub, 529 S.W.2d 924 (Mo.App.1975). Accordingly, we quash the preliminary rule in prohibition hereinbefore issued.

It is so ordered.

All concur.

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

PRELIMINARY RULE IN PROHIBITION QUASHED

TITUS, Judge.

Our preliminary rule in prohibition went down on a petition which alleged that the respondent circuit judge pretended jurisdiction to restrain and enjoin the relators herein as members of the city council of the City of Joplin from “Bringing Council Bill No. 76-30 up for final reading.” Albright v. Fisher, 164 Mo. 56, 64 S.W. 106 (banc 1901). After our preliminary rule intervened to prohibit respondent from restraining and enjoining said action, so we are advised by stipulation of the parties, the relators met and voted against adoption of said council bill, thus effectively rendering moot relators’ plea for relief. To continue to press our writ against the respondent would be useless. State ex rel. Drain v. Schoenlaub, 529 S.W.2d 924 (Mo.App.1975). Accordingly, we quash the preliminary rule in prohibition hereinbefore issued.

It is so ordered.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

536 S.W.2d 523, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-craig-v-pyle-moctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack