HAKE ET AL v. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ET AL (1942)

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

HAKE ET AL. v. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ET AL.

Civ. 2687.

Decided: January 15, 1942

Frederick E. Hoar and Siemon & Siemon, all of Bakersfield, for appellants. Walter Osborn, City Atty., R. Y. Burum, Asst. City Atty., and John Shortridge, Deputy City Atty., all of Bakersfield, for respondents.

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When this appeal came on for hearing the court was informed that the ordinance in question has been repealed, and it therefore appears that all questions raised have become moot.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.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network