Case Name: LUCE v. CITY OF BRISTOW
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1925-12-22
Citations: 115 Okla. 232
Docket Number: No. 16010
Parties: LUCE v. CITY OF BRISTOW.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 115
Pages: 232–233

Head Matter:
LUCE v. CITY OF BRISTOW.
No. 16010
Opinion Filed Dec. 22, 1925.
Thompson & Smith, for plaintiff!in error.
Louis Loeffler, City Atty., and Hirsh & Hirsh, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
DICKSON, C.
The plaintiff in error commenced this action in the superior court of Sapulpa to enjoin the defendant and its officers from enforcing a certain ordinance of said city, regulating the licensing of pool halls in said city.
Upon the filing of the petition the court granted a temporary injunction. Later on, upon motion of the defendant in error, the trial court dissolved the temporary injunction, and from this order the plaintiff in error has appealed to this court.
Since the appeal was filed in this court, the ordinance attacked in the proceedings has been repealed, -and a decision now upon the questions presented would in the nature of things be of no particular benefit to either party. Gilbert et al. v. Divelbliss, 40 Okla. 622, 139 Pac. 1132; Massey et al. v. School Dist. No. 58 et al., 101 Okla. 13, 222 Pac. 674. For the reason that the questions presented by this appeal have become moot by the repeal of the ordinance in question, the proceeding in error is dismissed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.
Note. — See under (1) 3 O. J. p. 364, § 118; 2 R. C. L. p. 169; 1 R. O. L. Supp. p. 424; 4 R. C. L. Supp. p. 87; 5 R. C. L. Supp. p. 77.