State ex rel. Hadley v. Burkhead
Supreme Court of Missouri
Quo Warranto. (1) A consideration of the constitutionality of the act of 1901, creating the Thirty-first Judicial Circuit, requires a consideration of sections 25, 30, 32, article 6, Constitution 1875, and, along therewith, section 14, article 6, and section 8, article 2, and section 9, article 14, and section 8, article 5, Constitution 1865. The general provision in reference to filling vacancies is found in section 11, article 5, Constitution 1875, which is practically, a…
Read the full summary
Quo Warranto. (1) A consideration of the constitutionality of the act of 1901, creating the Thirty-first Judicial Circuit, requires a consideration of sections 25, 30, 32, article 6, Constitution 1875, and, along therewith, section 14, article 6, and section 8, article 2, and section 9, article 14, and section 8, article 5, Constitution 1865. The general provision in reference to filling vacancies is found in section 11, article 5, Constitution 1875, which is practically, a reproduction of the Constitution of 1865. The power to create new circuits is to be found in section 24, article 6, and…
1Opinion of the Court
GANTT, J. —
This is an original proceeding in this court by the Attorney-General against Judge Asbury Burkhead, to require said Burkhead to show by what authority be assumes to exercise the duties of the office of judge of the circuit court within and for the Thirty-first Judicial Circuit of this State.
The return of the respondent pleads as bis warrant for so doing, that the General Assembly of Missouri by an act approved March 13, 1901, created and established the Thirty-first Judicial Circuit of this State, composed of the counties of Christian, Douglas, Ozark, Stone and Taney, and provided…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Stocking v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1855
- State ex rel. Henderson v. County CourtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Wellborn v. EstesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1883
- State ex rel. Smith v. AskewSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. MessmoreWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Fields v. EuCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- State ex inf. Major v. AmickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Schaffner v. ShawSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920
- State Ex Rel. Swope v. MechemNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1954
- Wright v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.