Legal Opinion
Attorney General ex rel. Barbour v. Pingree
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided July 5, 1899PublishedCited by 18 opinions
Quo ivarrcmto by Horace M. Oren, attorney general, on the relation of George H. Barbour and others, against Hazen S. Pingree,' Elliott G. Stevenson, and Carl E. Schmidt, to determine the validity of the áct creating the Detroit Street-Railway Commission.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
This is a proceeding brought to test the validity of an act approved March 24, 1899, entitled “An act to authorize the city of Detroit to construct, acquire, maintain, and operate street railways, and to construct' extensions thereof.” Act No. 338, Local Acts 1899. The provisions of the act material to this discussion are as follows:
“ The people of the State of Michigan enact:
“Section 1. That the common council of the city of Detroit be, and is hereby, authorized and empowered to appoint by resolution, at any time within the next 20 years, three persons, electors and freeholders of said city,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- People ex rel. Detroit & Howell Railroad v. Township BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1870
- Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- People ex rel. Bay City v. State TreasurerMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Rippe v. BeckerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Detroit City Railway v. MillsMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Alan v. Wayne CountyMichigan Supreme Court · 1972
- State Ex Rel. Wilkinson v. MurphySupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
- City of Gaylord v. Gaylord City ClerkMichigan Supreme Court · 1966
- Young v. City of Ann ArborMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
- State ex rel. Coleman v. KellySupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.