TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fisher v. Lockridge

Fisher v. Lockridge, County Judge

Fisher v. Lockridge, 1913 OK 67, 130 P. 136
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 28, 1913
Docket
No. 4224
Judges
Wieliams
Citations
130 P. 1361913 OK 6735 Okla. 3601912 Okla. LEXIS 581
Disposition
Writ quashed and petition dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—-Abstract Propositions. Abstract or hypothetical questions disconnected, from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of,which no practical relief can follow, except the awarding of the costs, will not be determined on appeal, but the cause will be dismissed. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Action by Alex Fisher for writ of mandamus against Ross F. Loekridge, county judge for Pottawatomie County.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wieliams

*361 WIELIAMS, J.

On July 27, 1912, the plaintiff commenced an action in this court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to require the respondent to certify to his disqualification in a certain cause pending in the county court of Pottawatomie county, specifically alleging certain grounds as to his disqualification.

On July 31, 1912, an alternative writ of mandamus was issued returnable on September 3, 1912. Respondent having made return to said writ, and the plaintiff having filed reply thereto on September 3, 1912, by agreement of all parties J. H. Everest, Esq., of Oklahoma City, Okla., was appointed referee to take evidence and report same together with his findings of fact and conclusions of law. The referee having made a report to this court, said cause was set for hearing on December 3, 1912, upon the exceptions of the respondent to the referee’s report, at which time, after hearing, the same was submitted for determination. The term of office of the respondent expired on the first Monday of January, 1913, at which time his successor qualified, without this court having reached a determination in said cause. Abstract or hypothetical questions disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow, except the awarding of the costs, will not be determined on. appeal, but the cause will be dismissed. Gray’s Okla. Dig., and authorities cited in section 6, at page 31.

The plaintiff’s alternative writ will be quashed, and the plaintiff’s petition dismissed at his cost.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1914: 21916: 219142026peak 1914 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Killough v. Ft. Supply Telephone & Telegraph Co.1916 OK 116, 154 P. 1192
  2. State ex rel. Lozier v. Bogle1914 OK 240, 140 P. 1153
  3. Harrold v. Wichita Falls & N. W. Ry. Co.1914 OK 419, 143 P. 40
  4. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Town of Comanche1916 OK 899, 162 P. 466

Most recent

  1. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Town of Comanche1916 OK 899, 162 P. 466
  2. Killough v. Ft. Supply Telephone & Telegraph Co.1916 OK 116, 154 P. 1192
  3. Harrold v. Wichita Falls & N. W. Ry. Co.1914 OK 419, 143 P. 40
  4. State ex rel. Lozier v. Bogle1914 OK 240, 140 P. 1153

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