State ex rel. Grosshans v. Gray
Nebraska Supreme Court
Original action in nature of quo warranto, 1 Dillon Mun. Corp ,, Sec. • 229. Steckert v. Saginaw, 22 Mich., 104. Fordyce v. Godman, 20 Ohio State, 1. Morrison v. Lawrence, 98 Mass., 219. Spangler v-. Jacoby, 14 111., 297. Ryan v., Lynch, 68 I'll,, 160. McCracken v, San Francisco, 16. Cal., 591. State v. McLelland, 18 Neb., 236. Carroll v., Wall, 10 Pac, Rep., 1,
1Opinion of the Court
Cobb, J,
This is an original' action- of quo warranto, brought in this court by August Grosshans, who claims to be a coun-. oilman of the city of Sutton,, against Clinton B. Gray,. William II. Thompson, Leonard Jarrett, August Greenheid, George Honey, and Hiram Jones, who. are the d& facto, members, of tlie, Qo.uneil. of said city.
*366The relator alleges that, in April, 1886, he was duly elected a councilman of the city of Sutton, a city of the second class, for the term of one year, and until his successor should be elected and qualified according to law, with allegations of his qualifications…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Magneau v. City of FremontNebraska Supreme Court · 1890
- State ex rel. Young v. YatesMontana Supreme Court · 1897
- Freeman v. City of NelighNebraska Supreme Court · 1952
- Prucka v. Eastern Sarpy Drainage DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1953
- Center Bank v. Department of Banking & FinanceNebraska Supreme Court · 1981
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.