State ex rel. Mau v. Ausherman
Wyoming Supreme Court
Original proceeding for writ of prohibition. The facts áre stated in the opinion. First, we desire to look at the terms of the constitution which give to the court authority for issuing the writ of prohibition. Referring to Section 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution, we find the following language: “Sec. 3. The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in quo warranto and mandamus as to all state officers, and in habeas corpus.
Read the full summary
Original proceeding for writ of prohibition. The facts áre stated in the opinion. First, we desire to look at the terms of the constitution which give to the court authority for issuing the writ of prohibition. Referring to Section 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution, we find the following language: “Sec. 3. The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in quo warranto and mandamus as to all state officers, and in habeas corpus. The Supreme Court shall also have power to issue writs of mandamus, review, prohibition, habeas corpus, certiorari and other writs proper and necessary to the…
1Opinion of the Court
Potter, Justice.
The relator alleges in his petition that B. M. Ausherman, District Court Commissioner of the District Court for Uinta County, in disregard of his authority and jurisdiction in the premises, has proceeded unlawfully to try and determine certain claims to the use of water flowing through a certain ditch, and has appointed one H. J. Somsen as a distributer of water flowing in said ditch, under the provisions of Sections 908-914, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes, and that said -commissioner will proceed further under. said order unless prohibited by the order of this court to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Attorney General v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- State ex rel. Fourth National Bank of Philadelphia v. JohnsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Evansville, Indianapolis & Cleveland Straight Line Railroad v. City of EvansvilleIndiana Supreme Court · 1860
- Wheeler v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1886
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Kwallek v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1979
- Willey v. DeckerWyoming Supreme Court · 1903
- Williams v. StaffordWyoming Supreme Court · 1979
- City of Sheridan v. CadleWyoming Supreme Court · 1916
- State Ex Rel. Pearson v. HansenWyoming Supreme Court · 1966
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.