State ex rel. City of Terre Haute v. Kolsem
Indiana Supreme Court
From the Vigo Superior Court.
1Opinion of the CourtElliott, C. J.
A preliminary question, arising upon the contention of counsel that the appellees are barred from prosecuting this action, first requires consideration. The facts upon which counsel plant themselves are, in substance, these: The relator filed an information in the nature of a quo war-ranto against the appellees, asserting that they had entered into the office in controversy without right. The trial court sustained the relator, and gave judgment in its favor. The appellees prayed an appeal, but took no further steps to effect an appeal. Subsequently the appellees brought this suit to review…
2Cases cited57 opinions
- People ex rel. Drake v. MahaneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
- Knox v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Meriwether v. GarrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- The People v. . Simeon DraperNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- State ex rel. White v. BarkerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. MontgomeryIndiana Supreme Court · 1898
- State ex rel. Board of Commissioners v. Board of CommissionersIndiana Supreme Court · 1908
- City of Logansport v. Public Service CommissionIndiana Supreme Court · 1931
- City of Terre Haute v. Evansville & Terre Haute RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.