City of Middletown v. Ferguson
Ohio Supreme Court
1DissentWright, J.
While I agree that the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances and the right to vote are among the most precious of liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights and the Ohio Constitution, the record in this case demonstrates beyond any doubt that the issues raised in this case are moot. It is axiomatic that the exercise of judicial power is limited to actual “justiciable matters.” (Section 4, Article IV, Constitution.) We are precluded by law from adjudicating hypothetical and speculative questions; the dispute must consist of specific adverse claims based…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. RainesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Alabama Power Co. v. IckesSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court, Los Angeles Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Hicklin v. ConeySupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Omar Stratman v. James G. Watt, Secretary of the InteriorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.