State ex rel. Titler v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Titler v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen

170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 582

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 4, 1960

DocketNo. 36246

StatusPublished

This text of 170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 582 (State ex rel. Titler v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Titler v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 582 (Ohio 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On February 2,1960, counsel for respondents filed in this court a motion for an order dismissing the case “for the reason that the question is now moot.”

Because of the necessity of amending its constitution and to comply with the new federal Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, the president and board of directors issued a call for a convention to be convened in Cleveland, Ohio, on January 4, 1960, on which day the convention did convene and continued in session from day to day thereafter. An affidavit of counsel, attached to and made a part of the motion to dismiss, states that the “convention will conclude its business * * * elect its officers and adjourn * * * and that at the time this convention adjourns it will have completed all of the business of the brotherhood that could properly be presented to the convention for action.”

It thus appearing that the question has become moot, the motion to dismiss is sustained and the appeal dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and Peck, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

On February 2,1960, counsel for respondents filed in this court a motion for an order dismissing the case “for the reason that the question is now moot.”

Because of the necessity of amending its constitution and to comply with the new federal Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, the president and board of directors issued a call for a convention to be convened in Cleveland, Ohio, on January 4, 1960, on which day the convention did convene and continued in session from day to day thereafter. An affidavit of counsel, attached to and made a part of the motion to dismiss, states that the “convention will conclude its business * * * elect its officers and adjourn * * * and that at the time this convention adjourns it will have completed all of the business of the brotherhood that could properly be presented to the convention for action.”

It thus appearing that the question has become moot, the motion to dismiss is sustained and the appeal dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and Peck, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-titler-v-brotherhood-of-railroad-trainmen-ohio-1960.