Yeager v. Shelton

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Yeager v. Shelton

1911 OK 454, 119 P. 983, 29 Okla. 667, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 353

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 14, 1911

Docket2462

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1911 OK 454 (Yeager v. Shelton) 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

Yeager v. Shelton, 1911 OK 454, 119 P. 983, 29 Okla. 667, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 353 (Okla. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

TURNER, C. J.

This being, as it is, an original proceeding by petition filed in this court March 25, 1911, by P. J. Yeager, against the defendants, “as and constituting the county election board of Tulsa county,” praying a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring said board and its secretary to accept and file petitioner’s nominating petition and place his name upon the official ballot to be used at an election to be held April 4, 1911, as an independent candidate for mayor of said city, the writ will not issue, and said petition is dismissed, for the reason that the time for holding said 'election having passed, the questions of law presented have become purely abstract or hypothetical, from a determination of which no practical results can flow. Reece v. Cheney et al., 28 Okla. 501. It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

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

TURNER, C. J.

This being, as it is, an original proceeding by petition filed in this court March 25, 1911, by P. J. Yeager, against the defendants, “as and constituting the county election board of Tulsa county,” praying a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring said board and its secretary to accept and file petitioner’s nominating petition and place his name upon the official ballot to be used at an election to be held April 4, 1911, as an independent candidate for mayor of said city, the writ will not issue, and said petition is dismissed, for the reason that the time for holding said 'election having passed, the questions of law presented have become purely abstract or hypothetical, from a determination of which no practical results can flow. Reece v. Cheney et al., 28 Okla. 501. It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK 454, 119 P. 983, 29 Okla. 667, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yeager-v-shelton-okla-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack