State ex rel. Craig v. Pyle

536 S.W.2d 523, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2730
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 26, 1976·No. No. 10335·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

536 S.W.2d 523 (State ex rel. Craig v. Pyle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Newman v. Heller
600 S.W.2d 704 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1980)
State ex rel. C. J. Patterson Co. v. Bacon
589 S.W.2d 113 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1979)