green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
42.1 score
“it is not the office of courts to give opinions on abstract propositions of law, or to decide questions upon which no rights depend, and where no relief can be afforded”
Treatment trajectory · 1947 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1947
1986
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Carmon v. COM., DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
it is not the office of courts to give opinions on abstract propositions of law, or to decide questions upon which no rights depend, and where no relief can be afforded
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Samuel Adam Heatherly v. Commonwealth of Virginia
“Accordingly, if ‘an event occurs’ pending appeal from a lower court judgment that ‘renders it impossible . . . to grant [appellant] any effectual relief,’ this Court must ‘dismiss the appeal.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Karen S. Taylor v. Board of Supervisors of Greene County, Virginia
Agency, Inc. v. Jones, 207 Va. 968, 970 (1967) (quoting Hankins v. Town of Va. Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944)). 5 Sojourner moved for an extension to file a late appellee brief, and we granted that motion by separate order. -5- A second SUP allows the Project on the Property, rendering Taylor’s appeal moot.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rebh v. County Board of Arlington County (ORDER)
Because our duty “is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect,” we have no authority “to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Hankins v. Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dilliraj Bista v. Commonwealth of Virginia
To the contrary, this Court has a “duty ‘not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 554 (2006) (quoting Hankins v. Town of Va. Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jordan Darrell Morris v. Commonwealth of Virginia
The judiciary has a “duty ‘not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 554 (2006) (quoting Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dilliraj Bista v. Commonwealth of Virginia
To the contrary, this Court has a “duty ‘not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 554 (2006) (quoting Hankins v. Town of Va. Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dilliraj Bista v. Commonwealth of Virginia
To the contrary, this Court has a “duty ‘not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 554 (2006) (quoting Hankins v. Town of Va. Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jordan Darrell Morris v. Commonwealth of Virginia
The judiciary has a “duty ‘not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 554 (2006) (quoting Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jordan Darrell Morris v. Commonwealth of Virginia
The judiciary has a “duty ‘not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 554 (2006) (quoting Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jerrod Max Palmer v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Accordingly, if “an event occurs” pending appeal from a lower court judgment that “renders it impossible . . . to grant [appellant] any effectual relief,” this Court must “dismiss the appeal.” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Hill v.Commonwealth of Virginia
“When it appears from the record, or from matters of which courts may take judicial notice, that the controversy that once existed has terminated by lapse of time, the appellate court will dismiss the writ of error or appeal.” Id. at 970 (quoting Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniel Johnston v. ECHL Personnel Management of New Jersey and Great Divide Insurance Company
Additionally, Virginia courts do not opine on “moot questions or abstract propositions” nor do they “declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Id. at 554 (quoting Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cynthia M. Owens & Richard L. Owens v. City of VA Beach & State Building Code Technical Review Board
In describing the mootness doctrine, the Supreme Court has observed, “‘[w]henever it appears . . . that there is no actual controversy between the litigants, or that, if it once existed it has ceased to do so, it is the duty of every judicial tribunal not to proceed to the formal determination of the apparent controversy, but to dismiss the case.’” McCarthy Holdings LLC v. Burgher, 282 Va. 267, 275 , 716 S.E.2d 461, 465 (2011) (quoting Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 643 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
LaDawn Shrieves King v. Dwayne E. King
“The duty of this court . . . is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (quoting Hamer v. Commonwealth, 107 Va. 636, 637-38 , 59 S.E. 400, 400 (1907)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amanda C. Padula-Wilson v. Michael G. Wilson
Courts should not “‘give opinions on abstract propositions of law, or . . . decide questions upon which no rights depend, and where no relief can be afforded.’” Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 554 , 633 S.E.2d 203, 204 (2006) (quoting Hankins v. Town of Va. Beach, 182 Va. 642, 643-44 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mark Lowe v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Consequently, the appeal is moot and dismissed. “‘The duty of this court . . . is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (quoting Hamer v. Commonwealth, 107 Va. 636, 637-38 , 59 S.E. 400, 400 (1907)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mark Lowe v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Consequently, the appeal is moot and dismissed. “‘The duty of this court . . . is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (quoting Hamer v. Commonwealth, 107 Va. 636, 637-38 , 59 S.E. 400, 400 (1907)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carissa Michelle Johns v. Charles Edward Johns
See United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (holding that “mootness has two aspects: ‘when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome’” (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969))). “‘The duty of this court . . . is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Hank…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Denese Michelle Merritt Canedo v. Guillermo Alberto Canedo
ANALYSIS “‘The duty of this court . . . is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (quoting Hamer v. Commonwealth, 107 Va. 636, 637-38 , 59 S.E. 400, 400 (1907)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
E.C. v. Virginia Dep't of Juvenile Justice
Franklin v. Peers, 95 Va. 602, 603 , 29 S.E. 321, 321 (1898); see also Miller v. International Union of United Brewery, etc. Workers of Am. 187 Va. 889, 897 , 48 S.E.2d 252, 255 (1948); Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 643-44 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944); Potts v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 165 Va. 196, 225 , 181 S.E. 521, 533 (1935); Board of Supervisors of Amherst County v. Combs, 160 Va. 487, 497 , 169 S.E. 589, 593 (1933); Wallerstein v. Brander, 136 Va. 543, 546 , 118 S.E. 224 , 9 225 (1923); Hamer v. Commonwealth, 107 Va. 636, 637 , 59 S.E. 400, 400 (1907).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James E. Blankenship v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
As we explained in Virginia Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 554 , 633 S.E.2d 203, 204 (2006) (quoting Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 643-44 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944)), 3 when “[t]here is no actual controversy between the litigants, or that, if it once existed it has ceased to do so, it is the duty of every judicial tribunal not to proceed to the formal determination of the apparent controversy, but to dismiss the case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. James E. Blankenship
As we explained in Virginia Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 554 , 633 S.E.2d 203, 204 (2006) (quoting Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 643-44 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944)), 3 when “[t]here is no actual controversy between the litigants, or that, if it once existed it has ceased to do so, it is the duty of every judicial tribunal not to proceed to the formal determination of the apparent controversy, but to dismiss the case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McCARTHY HOLDINGS LLC v. Burgher
"Whenever it appears or is made to appear that there is no actual controversy between the litigants, or that, if it once existed it has ceased to do so, it is the duty of every judicial tribunal not to proceed to the formal determination of the apparent controversy, but to dismiss the case." Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 643 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William Scott Ingram v. Commonwealth of Virginia
(2×)
Hallmark v. Jones, 207 Va. 968, 970 , 154 S.E.2d 5, 7 (1967) (“‘When it appears from the record, or from matters of which courts may take judicial notice, that the controversy that once existed has terminated by lapse of time, the appellate court will dismiss the writ or appeal.’” (quoting Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944))). “[A]ppellate courts do not sit to give opinions on moot questions or abstract matters, but only to decide actual controversies injuriously affecting the rights of some party to the litigation.” Id. at 971, 154 S.E.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
David B. Briggman v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Social Services, etc.
(2×)
“The duty of this court . . . is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hollowell v. Virginia Marine Resources Commission
(2×)
Jackson v. Marshall, 19 Va.App. 628, 635 , 454 S.E.2d 23, 27 (1995) (quoting Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Sletten
“Whenever it appears or is made to appear that there is no actual controversy between the litigants, or that, if it once existed it has ceased to do so, it is the duty of every judicial tribunal not to proceed to the formal determination of the apparent controversy, but to dismiss the case.” Hankins v. Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 643 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Judith Anthony Brumfield v. Commonwealth of Virginia
(2×)
Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 643 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bennett v. Small
Hankins v. Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 643 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frank Linwood Murray, Jr. v. Commonwealth
This is so because “[t]he duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)). “‘It is not the office of courts to give opinions on abstract propositions of law, or to decide questions upon which no…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Virginia Department of State Police v. Elliott
We see it as our duty “not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 , 16 S.Ct. 132 , 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Najera v. Chesapeake Division of Social Services
In cases where, as here, “an event occurs which renders it impossible for this court, if it should decide the case in favor of the [appellant], to grant him any effectual relief whatever, the court will not proceed to a formal judgment but -will dismiss the appeal.” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (citation omitted); see also Wallerstein v. Brander, 136 Va. *243 543, 546, 118 S.E. 224, 225 (1923) (applying “effectual relief’ principle).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Warren A. Picciolo, Guardian ad litem v. Shannon Shifflett and Elvis Gene Shifflett, Sr.
This is so because “[t]he duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried -4- into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harrisonburg Rockingham Social Services District v. Shannon Shifflett and Elvis Gene Shifflett, Sr.
This is so because “[t]he duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried -4- into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bruce Forbes v. Commonwealth
This is so because “[t]he duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bruce Forbes v. Commonwealth
This is so because “[t]he duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tazewell County School Board v. Brown
See RF & P Corp. v. Little, 247 Va. 309, 315 , 440 S.E.2d 908, 912 (1994) (where relief can be provided, issue is not moot); Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 643-44 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Salvatierra v. City of Falls Church
Appellant further argues that the amendment to the statute does not affect his status as a parolee and does not relieve him of the burden of facing possible subsequent commitments for future violations of supervision. “ ‘The duty of this court ... is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (cita…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shawnee Management Corp. v. Rhonda Hamilton
Once a controversy between litigants ceases to exist, “it is the duty of every judicial tribunal not to proceed to the formal determina *681 tion of the apparent controversy____” Hankins v. Town of Va. Beach, 182 Va. 642, 643-44 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yolanda Turner v. Albert Spinner
"The duty of this court . . . is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it." Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Virginia Jockey Club, Inc. v. Virginia Racing Commission
(2×)
Therefore, Stansley Racing was not an "applicant," and the commission exceeded its statutory authority by awarding Stansley Racing an operator's license. (..continued) Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)) (emphasis added). - 10 - Colonial Downs, a limited partnership, had filed a joint application for licenses to own and operate a racetrack and provided all of the required personal and financial information concerning the partnership and the limited and general partners.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. Marshall
Dismissal is the proper remedy if “an event occurs which renders it impossible for [a] court, if it should decide the case in favor of the plaintiff, to grant him any effectual relief whatever.” Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944).
discussed
Cited "see"
Yasir Malik Smith v. Commonwealth of Virginia
See Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 553-54 (2006) (noting the Court’s “duty ‘not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it’” (quoting Hankins v. Town of Va. Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944))); see also Ingram v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. App. 14, 22 (2013) (“‘Advisory opinions represent an attenuate exercise of judicial power,’ ‘one which we traditionally avoid in all but the most extenuating circumstances.’” (first quoting Elliott,…
discussed
Cited "see"
Virginia Manufacturers Association v. Ralph S. Northam, Governor of Virginia
See Elliott, 48 Va. App. at 554 (noting the Court’s “duty ‘not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it’” (quoting Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944))); see also Ingram, 62 Va. App. at 22 (“‘Advisory opinions represent an attenuate exercise of judicial power,’ . . . ‘one which we traditionally avoid in all but the most extenuating circumstances’” (first quoting Elliott, 48 Va. App. at 553 , then quoting Pilson v. Commonwealth…
discussed
Cited "see"
BWX Technologies and Ace American Insurance Co. v. David W. Ashby
See Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 554 (2006) (defining our duty to not render advisory opinions as the duty “not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it” (quoting Hankins v. Town of Va. Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944))).
discussed
Cited "see"
David W. Ashby v. BWX Technologies and Ace American Insurance Co.
See Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 554 (2006) (defining our duty to not render advisory opinions as the duty “not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it” (quoting Hankins v. Town of Va. Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 (1944))).
discussed
Cited "see"
Craig Brown and Bonnie Brown v. Daniel Cerniglia and Millicent Cerniglia
“It is not the office of courts to give opinions on abstract propositions of law, or to decide questions upon which no rights depend, and where no relief can be afforded.”2 Id. (quoting E.C., 283 Va. at 530); see Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 554 (2006) (quoting Hankins v. Town of Va. Beach, 182 Va. 642, 643-44 (1944)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Darci A. Reilly v. Patrick L. Reilly
(2×)
See Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Elliott, 48 Va. App. 551, 554 , 633 S.E.2d 203, 204 (2006) (“We see it as our duty ‘not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” (quoting Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944))).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pamela L. Cave v. George R. Opria
(2×)
See Hankins v. Town of Virginia Beach, 182 Va. 642, 644 , 29 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1944); Jackson v. Marshall, 19 Va. App. 628, 635 , 454 S.E.2d 23, 27 (1995).
Hazel O. Hankins, as Admrx.
v.
Town of Virginia Beachs.
v.
Town of Virginia Beachs.
Record No. 2830.
Supreme Court of Virginia.
May 1, 1944.
W. R. Ashburn, for the appellants., Roy Smith and F. E. Kellam, for the appellees.
Browning.
Cited by 65 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Virginia (1)
Browning, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case involves the right of the appellants to operate their vehicles for hire on the streets of the Appellee under license number 2308 which was issued to them by the Appellee for the license year beginning on May 1st, 1943 and ending on April 30th, 1944.
It appearing that the license period has now expired and all rights and benefits thereunder have ended, there is no controversy or issue to be determined.
In Franklin v. Peers, 95 Va. 602, 29 S. E. 321, this was said:
“Whenever it appears or is made to appear that there is no actual controversy between the litigants, or that, if it once existed it has ceased to do so, it is the duty of every judicial tribunal not to proceed to the formal determination of the apparent controversy, but to dismiss the case. It is not the office of courts to give opinions on abstract propositions of law, or to decide questions upon which no rights depend,[*644] and where no relief can be afforded. Only real controversies and existing rights are entitled to invoke the exercise of their powers.
When it appears from the record, or from matters of which courts may take judicial notice, that the controversy that once existed has terminated by lapse of time, the appellate court will dismiss the writ of error or appeal. Shumate v. Spilman, 10 Va. Law Journal 443; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651; and Cutcomp v. Utt, 60 Iowa 156.”
In the case of Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 16 S. Ct. 132, 40 L. Ed. 293, Mr. Justice Gray said:
“The duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it. It necessarily follows that when, pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, and without any fault of the defendant, an event occurs which renders it impossible for this court, if it should decide the case in favor of the plaintiff, to grant him any effectual relief whatever, the court will not proceed to a formal judgment but will dismiss the appeal. And such a fact, when not appearing on the record, may be proved by extrinsic evidence. Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251; California v. San Pablo & Tulare Railroad, 149 U. S. 308.”
This was quoted in the case of Hamer v. Commonwealth, 107 Va. 636, 637, 59 S. E. 400.
The case is dismissed without costs to either party.
Dismissed.