After an expensive legal fight and questionable results, Oakland’s controversial gang injunctions — restricting the movements of more than four dozen men — are being dropped, the city attorney confirmed late Thursday.

The hotly debated legal tactic goes back to 2010 when the city pursued preliminary injunctions against 15 men who were allegedly members of the North Side Oakland gang. Another 40 men were added to the list in 2012, with reported ties to the Fruitvale neighborhood’s Norteños gang.

The effort sought to address gang-related crime in the neighborhoods by prohibiting the men from meeting in the areas, possessing guns or illegal drugs, or defacing property. A 10 p.m. curfew allowed them to leave their homes at night only for work, school, religious worship or a commercial entertainment event. Violators were subject to jail for contempt of court.

City Attorney Barbara Parker, who inherited the injunction cases from her predecessor John Russo, said she believed the preliminary injunctions proved successful, with just eight of the 40 Fruitvale men arrested for crimes ranging from driving under the influence to attempted murder within the injunction zone since 2012.

However, 16 of the men were arrested for robbery, grand theft and domestic violence outside the zone or in other cities, Parker said.

“The injunctions were intended to be temporary measures to disrupt criminal behavior of specific members of gangs within specific neighborhoods,” Parker said. “They were not intended to last for the lifetime of the defendants.”

None was arrested for violating the injunction. And while the City Council directed Parker to pursue permanent injunctions against the men, it also prevented her office from filing any other injunctions against alleged gang members.

Attorneys defending the North Oakland and Fruitvale men argued that the effort was a waste of money and unfairly targeted the residents, many of whom had only minor run-ins with the law years earlier.

Despite their legal objections that the injunctions violated civil liberties, the California Court of Appeals upheld the crime-fighting tactic.

“They came and they said these guys are gang members, and we have to restrict them because they’re a nuisance,” said Jeff Wozniak, who represented those under the Fruitvale injunction. “They’ve spent millions of dollars on this with no showing that anything has been improved.”

Other than the drawn-out legal battle, the city seemingly forgot about the injunctions, Wozniak said.

“We have always maintained this is an antiquated strategy,” he added. “I hope this is a sign of better direction for the city.”

Oakland’s Police Chief Sean Whent supported the move to dismiss the injunction cases against the men, Parker said. The Police Department is focusing on other intervention strategies, including the Ceasefire program, which identifies known offenders and offers them the choice of education and job training or prison rather than the injunctions, she added.

“Given Chief Whent’s priorities for the Police Department, limited resources in the City Attorney’s Office, and the fact that the injunctions were intended to be temporary measures, the city will file dismissals of both injunction cases without prejudice,” Parker said.

The decision has been a long time coming, said attorney Michael Haddad, who represented one of the North Oakland men. The man died late last year with the injunction still hanging over him, his lawyer said.

“It was a huge injustice,” Haddad said. “And it was a travesty that courts allowed it.”

Jill Tucker is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: jtucker@sfchronicle.com; Twitter: @jilltucker.