Categories: Court Opinions

GOZA v. DISTRICT COURT, 122 Mont. 59 (1948)

198 P.2d 629

STATE EX REL. GOZA ET AL., RELATORS, v. DISTRICT COURT OF EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

No. 8862Supreme Court of Montana.Submitted October 14, 1948.
Decided October 14, 1948.

1. Certiorari.
Where evidence desired from witnesses ordered examined by the district court for perpetuation of testimony was voluntarily made available by others to applicants, who thereupon had examination proceeding stayed by subsequent order of the district court, the matter presented by the witnesses’ petition for certiorari to review the original order became moot, and the Supreme Court would order the district court’s stay made permanent and terminate the proceedings for review.2. Moot Questions — Moot questions will not be decided by Appellate Court.

Page 60

Mr. R.V. Bottomly, Atty. Gen., Mr. Clarence Hanley, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. H.O. Vralsted, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant. Mr. Vralsted argued the cause orally.

Messrs. Hall Alexander, of Great Falls, for respondent. Mr. H.C. Hall argued the cause orally.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari. Original Proceeding. On the hearing this day on the return of the writ, H.C. Hall, Esq., counsel for respondents and also for the applicant in the proceeding in the district court of Cascade County entitled “In the Matter of the Perpetuation of the Testimony of Sam D. Goza, F.B. Purdy and James M. Teakles” wherein an order for the examination of said witnesses issued out of said district court on September 13, 1948, informed this Court that the information and evidence desired from said witnesses had been voluntarily supplied and made available to the applicant by the State Board of Equalization, its officers and agents, and that applicant, Central Local Chapter No. 104, Inc., a corporation, desired to and that it would proceed no further in said district court proceeding or under the order of said court therein and that the operation of said order had been and is stayed by a subsequent order of said district court and it appearing that the matter presented by relators’ petition has become and is now moot — it is ordered that the district court’s order staying execution of its order of September 13, 1948, in said proceeding be made permanent; that the writ issued by this Court be discharged and this proceeding be terminated and ended.

Page 61

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 198 P.2d 629

Recent Posts

HOWARD v. DALIO, 249 Mont. 316 (1991)

815 P.2d 1150 HAZEL HOWARD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIE DALIO, Defendant and Appellant. No.…

8 years ago

KAFKA v. THE MONTANA DEPT., 2008 MT 460

348 Mont. 80, 201 P.3d 8 KIM J. KAFKA and CINDY R. KAFKA, Individually and…

8 years ago

IN RE WEBB, 340 Mont. 380 (2007)

Marriage of Webb. No. DA 06-0633.Supreme Court of Montana. December 5, 2007. Appeal from the…

8 years ago

STATE EX REL. GRIFFITH v. CITY OF SHELBY, 107 Mont. 571 (1939)

87 P.2d 183 STATE EX REL. GRIFFITH, APPELLANT, v. CITY OF SHELBY ET AL., RESPONDENTS.…

8 years ago

STATE v. BROWNBACK, 2010 MT 96

356 Mont. 190, 232 P.3d 385 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. PATRICK DEAN…

8 years ago

CITY OF GREAT FALLS v. TEMPLE BAPTIST, 260 Mont. 319 (1993)

859 P.2d 1015 CITY OF GREAT FALLS, MONTANA, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.…

8 years ago