Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Stuart v. Meyer

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 24, 1925PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPardee, P. J.

The foregoing are separate actions in quo warranto, instituted in this court, and, while, under the law, they cannot be consolidated, still they are so related that the evidence in one case applies equally well to the other, and the evidence was all taken at once by a special master ap*437pointed by this court, for which reasons both actions have been argued together and submitted to this court for consideration and final determination.

The plaintiff claims that the first of said actions, being No. 1409 in this court, is brought pursuant to subdivision 3 of Section 12303, General Code, which reads…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bell v. CassemAppellate Court of Illinois · 1894
  2. Anthony Rivera v. City of BethlehemCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API