Richard Smith, & v. Charles F. Denny, &, 417 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
Richard Smith, & v. Charles F. Denny, &, 417 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist. No. 321, 177 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 1999)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 614 PER CURIAM: The motion to dismiss is granted. The plaintiffs (appellants) now have no interest whatever in the litigation. The children for whom the suit was…2 citing casesopening of page *614 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist. No. 321, 177 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 1999).published 2 cites
    Similarly, in Smith v. Denny, 417 F.2d 614, 614-15 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam), dismissing appeal from 280 F.Supp. 651, 652 (E.D.Cal.1968), we relied on Doremus to hold that the taxpayers lacked standing to challenge a school’s policy requ…
  • No. 97-35642, 177 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 1999).published 2 cites
    Similarly, in Smith v. Denny, 417 F.2d 614, 614-15 (9th Cir.1969) (per curiam), dismissing appeal from 280 F.Supp. 651, 652 (E.D.Cal.1968), we relied on Doremus to hold that the taxpayers lacked standing to challenge a school's policy requ…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard SMITH Et Al., Plaintiffs and
v.
Charles F. DENNY Et Al., Defendants and Appellees
22861.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 20, 1969.
Published opinion
417 F.2d 614
1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10367
Kristin B. Glen (argued), Victor Rabinowitz, Leonard B. Boudin and Michale B. Standard, of Rabinowitz, Boudin & Standard, New York City, Benjamin Dreyfus, of Garry, Dreyfus, McTernan & Brotsky, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants., Robert A. Rehberg (argued), County Counsel, Redding, Cal., for appellees., ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
Chambers, Carter, Jameson.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The motion to dismiss is granted. The plaintiffs (appellants) now have no interest whatever in the litigation. The children for whom the suit was brought have graduated from high school, thus depriving them and their parents of any continuing interest in the litigation.

Appellants resist the motion with an impressive array of authorities. We think this is one case still covered by Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 429, 72 S.Ct. 394, 96 L.Ed. 475.

Subsequent authorities indicate that where there is a strong chance that the same complained of conduct will reoccur and the same plaintiffs be offended by it, the cause is not necessarily moot.

Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 89 S.Ct. 1493, 23 L.Ed.2d 1 is the best authority of appellant, but we distinguish it this way:

In Moore the appellants, who were candidates for the post of presidential elector, challenged the exclusion of their names from the ballot. The Supreme Court decided that although the election was over, the case was not moot because the appellants would again be subjected to the state election law at issue if they chose to again seek election as presidential electors. The appellants here do not show how they might ever be subjected to the pledge of allegiance ceremony held in Redding, California, secondary schools by directive of the Redding school board or suffer any direct harm therefrom. Thus, while the appellants in Moore faced[*615] the possibility of future direct harm, the appellants here fail to demonstrate such a possibility and none is apparent to us.

The contention that appellants have a standing as taxpayers we regard as too fragile a hook to hang a legal claim on here