Ideal Furnace Co. v. International Molders' Union of North America
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Richmond (Mich. 2010)
- In re MCI Telecommunications Complaint (Mich. 1999)
- Ameritech Michigan v. Public Service Commission (Mich. 1999)
- ANGLERS OF THE AuSABLE, INC v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (Mich. 2010)
- Becker v. Halliday (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)
- People v. Carey (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)
- Robertson v. Henderson (Or. 1947)
- Epicurean Developments LLC v. Summit Township (Mich. Ct. App. 2017)
- Epicurean Developments LLC v. Summit Township (Mich. Ct. App. 2017)
- Kevin Logan v. Charter Township of West Bloomfield (Mich. Ct. App. 2017)
- Kevin Logan v. Charter Township of West Bloomfield (Mich. Ct. App. 2017)
- Industrial Lease-Back Corp. v. Township of Romulus (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
- Strager v. Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)
- Mohawk Lumber & Supply Co. v. Petix (Mich. 1957)
- In re Estate of Fraser (Mich. 1939)
- Herbert v. Howard (Mich. 1936)
- Horowitz v. Rott (Mich. 1926)
- Thomas v. Montcalm Circuit Judge (Mich. 1923)
- People v. Ortwski (Mich. 1922)
- Blickle v. Board of Education (Mich. 1920)
- Anway v. Grand Rapids Railway Co. (Mich. 1920)
- Gildemeister v. Lindsay (Mich. 1920)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
On April 6, 1917, defendant Andrew Murray was adjudged guilty of contempt of court and fined $10 which was then paid. Later he filed claim of appeal and perfected the same. After the submission of the case in this court we requested briefs from counsel upon the right of the defendant to appeal from the order which had been- satisfied, and upon the power of the court to hear and determine the case. Such briefs have been filed. They have been read with care and all authorities cited have been examined. We are convinced that upon this record the questions are purely academic; that no real and substantial controversy is before us; that the order of the court below haying been satisfied and the fine paid no relief can be now granted appellant. The defendant by his own act has discharged the order entered by the court below. There is nothing before us for determination People v. Leavitt, 41 Mich. 470; Powell v. People, 47 Mich. 108; City of Ishpeming v. Maroney, 49 Mich. 226; State v. Conkling, 54 Kan. 108 (45 Am. St. Rep. 270, 37 Pac. 992); Washington v. Cleland, 49 Or. 12 (124 Am. St. Rep. 1013, 88 Pac. 305); Town of Batesburg v. Mitchell, 58 S. C. 564 (37 S. E. 36); 3 C. J. p.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.