Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
KUNZE, Mayor, et al. v. AUDITORIUM CO., 1931 — 52 F.2d 444 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
KUNZE, Mayor, et al. v. AUDITORIUM CO.
52 F.2d 444·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1931
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
KUNZE, Mayor, et al. v. AUDITORIUM CO.
No. 9159.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Sept. 4, 1931.
Neil M. Cronin, of Minneapolis, Minn. (Thomas B. Kilbride and Arthur P. Jensen, both of Minneapolis, Minn., on the brief), for appellants.
Harry S. Carson, of Minneapolis, Minn. (G-uesmer, Carson & MacGregor, of Minneapolis, Minn., on the brief), for appellee.
Before STONE and GARDNER, Circuit Judges, and YOUMANS, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — STONE, Circuit Judge.]
STONE, Circuit Judge.
January 14, 1931, a temporary injunction was granted preventing appellants, the mayor and chief of police of the city of Minneapolis, from interfering with the exhibition by appellee of a moving picture film. Prom that order this appeal is taken.
At the argument o'f this case, it clearly appeared that the picture had been shown, for a short while, under the protection of the above order, and that there was no intention on the part of appellee to attempt to show the picture again. Thus it is clear that this entire controversy had become moot at the time it was presented to this court. Following the practice of the Supreme Court in such eases, the cause will be remanded to the trial court, with directions to vacate its order granting the temporary injunction and to dismiss the bill because the case has become moot, without costs to either party. Sprunt & Son v. U. S., 281 U. S. 249, 261, 50 S. Ct. 315, 74 L. Ed. 832; U. S. v. Anchor Coal Co., 279 U. S. 812, 49 S. Ct. 262, 73 L. Ed. 971; Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U. S. 528, 535, 46 S. Ct. 600, 70 L. Ed. 1071; Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216, 218, 43 S. Ct. 263, 67 L. Ed. 620; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360, 363, 39 S. Ct. 512, 63 L. Ed. 1030; Board of Public Utility Com’rs v. Compania General de Tabacos de Pilipinas, 249 U. S. 425, 427, 39 S. Ct. 332, 63 L. Ed. 687.