Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216 (1923). · Go Syfert
Search
Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216 (1923). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1980 · …to adjudicate a cause which no longer exists is a proceeding which this court uniformly has declined to entertain.' brownlow v. schwartz, 261 u. s. 216, 217-218 . ≈ altered
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 · 2 courts · …would ostensibly require something to be done which had already taken place, ✓
386 citation events (43 in the last 25 years) across 40 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Venodhar Julapalli v. Medical Staff of Houston Methodist the Woodlands Hospital (texapp, 2024-08-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1924 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1924 1975 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Venodhar Julapalli v. Medical Staff of Houston Methodist the Woodlands Hospital
Tex. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Id. (quoting Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216, 217-18 (1923)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reston Hospital Center, L.L.C. v. Remley (2×)
Fairfax Cir. Ct. · 2014 · confidence medium
In the case of Brownlow v. Schwartz, the United States Supreme Court found that the case on appeal had become moot “because the permit, the issuance of which constituted the sole relief sought by petitioner, ha[d] been issued and the building to which it related ha[d] been completed.” Brownlow, 261 U.S. 216, 217 (1923).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paul v. Milk Depots, Inc.
Cal. · 1964 · confidence medium
Since the basis for that judgment has now disappeared we should “dispose of the ease, not merely of the appellate proceeding which brought it here.” (In re Rosegarten (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 126,128 [1] [ 183 P.2d 360 ], quoting from Brownlow v. Schwartz (1923) 261 U.S. 216, 218 [ 43 S.Ct. 263 , 67 L.Ed. 620 ].) That result can be achieved by reversing the judgment solely for the purpose of restoring the matter to the jurisdiction of the superior court, with directions to the court to dismiss the proceeding.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Rosegarten
Cal. Ct. App. · 1947 · confidence medium
In Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216, 218 [ 43 S.Ct. 263 , 67 L.Ed 620], the court said: “The case being moot, further proceedings upon the merits can neither be had here nor in the court of first instance.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Woodring v. Clarksburg-Columbus Short Route Bridge Co.
SCOTUS · 1937 · confidence medium
Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216, 217, 218 ; Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U. S. 528, 535, 536 ; Bracken v. Securities & Exchange Comm’n, 299 U. S. 504 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Leader v. Apex Hosiery Co.
SCOTUS · 1937 · confidence medium
Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216, 217, 218 ; Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U. S. 528, 535, 536 ; Bracken v. Securities & Exchange Comm’n, 299 U. S. 504 .
cited Cited "see" Ohio ex rel. Moore v. Brahma Investment Group
6th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216, 217-18 (1923).
discussed Cited "see" Boggess v. Berry Corporation (2×)
9th Cir. · 1956 · signal: see · confidence high
See A.C.L.A.1949, § 35-4-19. 39 Brownlow v. Schwartz, supra, 261 U.S. at page 217 , 43 S.Ct. at page 264 , was a building permit case.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Thorn v. Walker (3×)
D.C. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
“A case is moot when the legal issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or when the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Id. (citing Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 , 102 S.Ct. 1181 , 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982)); see also Brownlow, Commissioners of the District of Columbia v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216, 217 , 43 S.Ct. 263 , 67 L.Ed. 620 (1923) (case moot because “there is now no actual controversy between the parties — no issue on the merits which this Court can properly decide.”).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Frank E. Acierno v. Michael Mitchell, in His Official and Individual Capacity New Castle County (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3533.2 (1984); see also Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216 , 43 S.Ct. 263 , 67 L.Ed. 620 (1923) (appeal from injunction, which directed issuance of building *974 permit, moot only where building was constructed prior to appeal of injunction). 9 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Hobson v. Hansen (6×)
D.D.C. · 1967 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216 , 43 S.Ct. 263 , 67 L.Ed. 620 (1923). .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Boggess ex rel. City of Fairbanks v. Berry Corp. (3×)
9th Cir. · 1956 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Brownlow v. Schwartz, 1923, 261 U.S. 216, 217-219 , 43 S.Ct. 263 , 67 L.Ed. 620 , and the many cases there cited; Woodring v. Clarksburg-Columbus Short Route Bridge Co., 1937, 302 U.S. 658 , 58 S.Ct. 365 , 82 L.Ed. 509 ; Paramount Pictures, Inc., v. Langer, 1939, 306 U.S. 619 , 59 S.Ct. 641 , 83 L.Ed. 1025 ; Retail Food Clerks & Managers Union, Local No. 1357 v. Union Premier Food Stores, Inc., 1940, 308 U.S. 526 , 60 S.Ct. 376 , 84 L.Ed. 445 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Brownlow Et Al., Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Et Al.
v.
Schwartz
95.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 19, 1923.
261 U.S. 216
1923 U.S. LEXIS 2545
Mr. Robert L. Williams, with whom Mr. F. H. Stephens was on the brief, for plaintiffs in error., Mr. W. Gwynn Gardiner for defendant in error.
Sutherland.
Cited by 150 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Justice Sutherland

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The defendant in error, petitioner .below, on June 9, 1920, filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, praying for a writ of mandamus against respondents requiring them to issue to her a permit to erect a building for business purposes on a lot situated on a residence street in Washington. Prior to filing the petition she made preparations to erect the .building and applied to the Building Inspector for a permit, which he[*217] declined to issue, upon grounds not necessary to be stated here.

The plaintiffs in error, respondents below, filed an answer to the petition and return to the rule to show cause; and to the answer a demurrer was interposed. On July 6, 1920, the demurrer was overruled, the rule to show cause discharged, and petition dismissed. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals this judgment was, on February 7, 1921, reversed and the cause remanded with directions to issue the writ as prayed. On March 19, 1921, an application for a rehearing was overruled and on June 13th following, this writ of error was allowed.

On March 14th, after the decision of the Court of Appeals but before the allowance of the writ of error, the permit demanded by petitioner was issued by the Building Inspector, and thereupon the building was constructed. It had been fully completed when the writ of error was allowed.' On June 2, 1921, petitioner conveyed all her interest in the property to persons not parties to this cause.

It thus appears that there is now no actual controversy between the parties — no issue on the merits which this Court can properly decide. The case has become moot for two reasons: (1) because the permit, the issuance of which constituted the sole relief sought by petitioner, has been issued and the building to which it related has been completed, and (2) because, the first reason aside, petitioner no longer has any interest in the building, and therefore has no basis for maintaining the action.

This Court will not proceed to a determination when its judgment would be wholly ineffectual for want of a subject matter on which it could operate. An affirmance would ostensibly require something to be done which had already taken place. A reversal would ostensibly avoid' an event which had already passed beyond recall. One would be as vain as the other. To adjudicate a cause[*218] which no longer exists is a proceeding which this Court uniformly has declined to entertain. See Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651; Codlin v. Kohlhausen, 181 U. S. 151; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547, 556; Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696, 699; American Book Co. v. Kansas, 193 U. S. 49; United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466, 475; Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468, 470; Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, 249 U. S. 425; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360; Heitmuller v. Stokes, 256 U. S. 359.

It is urged that the permit was issued by the Inspector of Buildings only because he' believed it was Incumbent upon him to comply with the judgment of the Court of Appeals and avoid even the appearance of disobeying it. The motive of the officer, so far as this question is concerned, is quite immaterial. We are interested only in the indisputable fact that his action, however induced, has left nothing to litigate. American Book Co. v. Kansas, supra. The case being moot, further proceedings upon the merits can neither be had here nor in the court of first instance. To dismiss the writ of error would leave the judgment of the Court of Appeals requiring the issuance of the mandamus in force — at least apparently so— notwithstanding the basis therefor has disappeared. Our action must, therefore, dispose of the case, not merely of the appellate proceeding which brought it here. The practice now established by this Court, under similar conditions and circumstances, is to reverse the judgment below 'and remand the case with directions to dismiss the bill, complaint or petition. United States v. Hamburg-American Co., supra; Berry v. Davis, supra; Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, supra; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, supra; Heitmuller v. Stokes, supra.

Following these precedents, the judgment below should be reversed, with directions to the Court of Appeals to[*219] remand the cause to the Supreme Court with instructions to dismiss the petition without costs, because the controversy involved has become moot and, therefore, is no longer a subject appropriate for judicial action.

And it is so ordered.