Board of Supervisors v. Blacker
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus. . Relator applied for mandamus to compel the respondent to give notice of the election of two Representatives from the county of Houghton, regardless of the division of the county by the apportionment act of 1891. The facts are stated in the opinions.
1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.
The Legislature, by Act No. 109, Laws of 1891, apportioned anew the Representatives in the Legislature among the several counties and districts of this State. The number of Representatives was fixed by the first section of the act at 100, in accordance with section 3, art. 4, of the Constitution, agreeably to a ratio of 1 Representative to every 20,938 persons, including civilized pei'sons of Indian descent, not membei’s of any tribe, in each organized county, and 1 Repi’esentative to each *640county having a fraction more than a moiety of said ratio, and not included therein, until 100…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. CunningamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by35 opinions
- People ex rel. Woodyatt v. ThompsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
- Denney v. State ex rel. BaslerIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
- Attorney General v. Suffolk County Apportionment CommissionersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Asbury Park Press, Inc. v. WoolleySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
- State ex rel. Barrett v. HitchcockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.