Legal Opinion · Dissent

Smith v. Reid

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 30, 1932No. File No. 7408Published

1DissentRoberts, J.

I dissent from the opinion of the court, and the importance of questions involved impels me to state my reasons for dissenting. The plaintiff instituted this action under the provisions of section 2781-2797, Rev. Code of 1919, as amended by chapter 289, Session Raws of 1919, which provide that the remedies formerly obtainable by writ of quo warranto and proceedings in the nature of quo warranto may be obtained by civil action under the provisions of these sections, to determine his right or title to the office of city commissioner. The source of these provisions is found in sections 347-364…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. McVeany v. Mayor, Aldermen & CommonaltyNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
  2. Dulin v. Pacific Wood & Coal Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Foster v. Kansas Ex Rel. JohnstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  4. Fawcett v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1896
  5. People ex rel. Dibelka v. ReinbergIllinois Supreme Court · 1914

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API