gno.law

Hake v. City of Bakersfield

California Court of Appeal · Civ. 2687 · 1942-01-15 · Published · 49 Cal. App. 2d 174 · 121 P.2d 25 · 1942 Cal. App. LEXIS 784

HARRY E. HAKE Et Al., Appellants, v. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Et Al., Respondents

Area
civil

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

THE COURT.

This was an action attacking the validity of an ordinance of the city of Bakersfield providing for the installation and operation of parking meters on portions of certain streets in that city, and seeking to enjoin and restrain the defendants from operating said parking meters. The court found for the defendants and entered a judgment, from which the plaintiffs appealed.

When this appeal came on for hearing the court was informed that the ordinance in question has been repealed, and it therefore appears that all questions raised have become moot. The only thing argued at the hearing was with respect to the right of the respondents to recover their costs on appeal in the event of a dismissal. We know of no reason for a different rule, with respect to costs, where an appeal is dismissed because the questions raised have become moot than in a case where the appeal is dismissed for other reasons. The usual rule should be applied here (see secs. 955 and 1034 of the Code of Civil Procedure), and it is so ordered.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cited by