Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

60 Colo. 499

Arnold v. Carey

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided September 15, 1915

Supreme Court of Colorado · decided 1915-09-15

<p>Error to Denver District Court. Hon. Greeley W. Whitford, Judge.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 2021

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It is not within the province of an appellate court to decide abstract or hypothetical questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of which no practical result can follow.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Skogsberg v. Jacobs

Relies on People v. Hall · Agricultural Ditch Co. v. Rollins · Northern Colorado Irrigation Co. v. Pouppirt

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Dismissed · Decided 1915-09-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam

¶1En Banc-.

¶2The judgment of this court determining the respective questions presented in each of the above causes could not affect the rights of either of the parties thereto at this time, for the reason that the subject matter of controversy in each has long since ceased to exist. An aetual controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction. It is not within the province of an appellate court to decide abstract or hypothetical questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of which no practical result can follow. City and County of Denver v. Brown, 47 Colo. 513; Agricultural Ditch Co. v. Rollins, 42 Colo. 267; Northern Colorado Co. v. Pouppirt, 47 Colo. 490; People v. Hall, 45 Colo. 303. Each of the cases fall within this rule, and they are theerfore dismissed.

¶3In causes Nos. 7780 and 7781 the costs in this court and the District Court are taxed to defendants in error.

/60/colo/499 · .json · Public domain