TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Douglas v. Baker

DOUGLAS Et Al. v. BAKER Et Al.

Douglas v. Baker, 1934 OK 1, 29 P.2d 573
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 9, 1934
Docket
No. 25054
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
29 P.2d 5731934 OK 1167 Okla. 3481934 Okla. LEXIS 510

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding in mandamus commenced before the district judge of Okmulgee county prior to the molding of a certain school election on Tuesday April 4, 1933, in the city of Okmulgee, independent school district No. 1, embracing the city of Okmulgee.

The applicants, having been denied Jffie right to vote in said election, applied to the judge for an order requiring the precinct officers of their precinct and the county election board to permit them to vote therein.

A motion io dismiss has been filed herein on the ground that the question has become moot. A response has been filed by the plaintiffs in error citing several' authorities in support of the merits of the right to vote in said election. These might be in point if the action were of a different nature, but the prayer for the relief sought is as follows:

“Wherefore petitioners pray that this Honorable Court grant a writ of mandamus requiring the sai'd defendants, acting in their respective official capacity, to forthwith deliver and give these petitioners and each and all of them and all other persons similarly situated, a ballot containing the names of persons to be voted for as members of the board of education of the independent school district No: 1 of the city of Okmulgee, Okla., Okmulgee county, and to permit said plaintiffs to cast the same in the election now being held in the city of Okmulgee, wards and precincts above stated.”

In the case of Parker v. U. S. Smelter Co. et al., 80 Okla. 129 , 194 P. 897 , the court held:

“The Supreme Court will not attempt to determine abstract, hypothetical, or moot questions, but where it is made to appear that the questions brought up for review have become moot, the proceedings will be dismissed.”

It being apparent that in no event, regardless of the law or error made below prior to the election, could this relief be granted now, the cause must be dismissed as moot. It is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1936: 21937: 21943: 11950: 21957: 11958: 11959: 11961: 119362026peak 1936 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Franklin v. Shelton250 F.2d 92 (10th Cir. 1957)
  2. Skelly Oil Co. v. Rose1936 OK 255, 55 P.2d 1019
  3. Traders Compress Co. v. Board of Review, Oklahoma Employment SEC. Com.1950 OK 274, 224 P.2d 268
  4. Hardwell v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co.73 P.2d 1120 (Kan. 1937)
  5. Cowan v. George W. Kerford Quarry Co.72 P.2d 999 (Kan. 1937)
  6. Superior Oil Co. v. Swimmer1936 OK 502, 60 P.2d 734

Most recent

  1. Wiederkehr v. Chambless-Rosen Drilling Co.1961 OK 58, 360 P.2d 513
  2. Kemp v. Chickasha Plumbing Company1959 OK 80, 338 P.2d 1107
  3. Franklin v. Shelton250 F.2d 92 (10th Cir. 1958)
  4. Franklin v. Shelton250 F.2d 92 (10th Cir. 1957)
  5. Traders Compress Co. v. Board of Review, Oklahoma Employment SEC. Com.1950 OK 274, 224 P.2d 268
  6. Epple v. Taylor1950 OK 243, 223 P.2d 352

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list