Legal Opinion
Belding v. State Ex Rel. Davis
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided January 14, 1926No. 6 Div. 470PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
Information in the nature of quo warranto is a civil proceeding, and is not governed by the rules and principles applicable to prosecutions for the conviction of crime. Taliaferro v. Lee, 13 So. 125, 97 Ala. 92, 98; Ames v. Kansas, 4 S. Ct. 437, 111 U. S. 449, 28 L. Ed. 482; 32 Cyc. 1414, 2. The fact that the inquiry involves the ascertainment of conduct on the part of the respondent which is punishable as a criminal offense in a proper criminal proceeding does not change the civil character of the information, which looks to civil consequences only.
The proceeding in this case is authorized…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ames and Others v. State of Kansas Ex Rel. Johnston. Kansas Pac. Ry Co. v. SameSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Woolf v. McGaughSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Taliaferro v. LeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
- Hines v. HinesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- State ex rel. Weatherly v. Birmingham Water Works Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ex Parte Central of Georgia Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1942
- State Ex Rel. Woods v. ThrowerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1961
- Donovan v. State Ex Rel. BiggsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Fraser v. State Ex Rel. BiggsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
- State ex rel. Fuller v. HargroveSupreme Court of Alabama · 1965
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.