State ex rel. Barrett v. Hitchcock
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. (1) Under section 3 of article 4 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to compel the judges of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis to subdivide said city into senatorial districts under an apportionment made in accordance with section 7 of article 4 of the Constitution, where the circuit judges refuse to perform the dut}7 imposed upon them by section 6 of article 4 of the Constitution.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. (1) Under section 3 of article 4 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to compel the judges of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis to subdivide said city into senatorial districts under an apportionment made in accordance with section 7 of article 4 of the Constitution, where the circuit judges refuse to perform the dut}7 imposed upon them by section 6 of article 4 of the Constitution. State ex rel. v. Hig’gins, 125 Mo. 364; State ex rel. v. Patterson, 229 Mo. 364; State ex rel. v. P’atterson, 229 Mo. 373; People ex rel. v. Broom, 138 N. T. 95; State ex rel.…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodson, J.
— This is an original proceeding by mandamus, instituted in this court by the relator, seeking to compel the respondents, the judges of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, to apportion or redistriet said city into six senatorial districts as is required to be done under certain' conditions, by section 7, article 4 of the Constitution of 1875.
A petition for an alternative writ of mandamus was filed, and after due consideration it was ordered to issue, and it was. made returnable January 2, 1912. The writ was issued and duly served; and upon the return day, the respondents filed their…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. CunningamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Matter of Sherrill v. . O'BrienNew York Court of Appeals · 1907
- Parker v. State ex rel. PowellIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
- State ex rel. Lamb v. CunninghamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Wolsey v. ChapmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Pearson v. KosterSupreme Court of Missouri · 2012
- Jones v. FreemanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943
- Attorney General v. Suffolk County Apportionment CommissionersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Attorney General v. City of MethuenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Asbury Park Press, Inc. v. WoolleySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.