Legal Opinion
Wick v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided August 21, 1932No. 1776 & 1777PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPollock, J.
As we have stated, there is no contention but what the issues stated in the pleadings in this case had by the action of Bethlehem become moot. Plaintiffs are urging the dismissal of the appeal in this action on the authority of Miner v Witt, 82 Oh St 237. The syllabus of that case reads as follows:
“It is not the duty of the court to answer moot questions, and when, pending proceedings in error in this court, an event occurs without the fault of either party, which renders it impossible for the court to grant any relief, it will dismiss the petition in error.”
It is urged on the other hand, by…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mills v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Geddes v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Homer v. Crown Cork and Seal Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1928
- Colgate v. United States Leather Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1907
- Metcalf v. American School Furniture Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Matteson v. ZiebarthWashington Supreme Court · 1952
- State ex rel. Rudes v. RofkarOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Johnson v. Spartanburg County Fair Ass'nSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1947
- Overesch v. CampbellOhio Court of Appeals · 1953
- Ohio Natl. Life Ins. Co. v. StrubleOhio Court of Appeals · 1948
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.