Legal Opinion
Kingsley v. City & County of Denver
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided August 12, 1952No. 16678PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Stone
Herein we shall refer to plaintiff Automatic Voting Machine Corporation as Automatic, to Shoup Voting Machine Corporation as Shoup, and to the City and County of Denver as Denver.
Plaintiff Kingsley brought action as a taxpaying elector of Denver, in behalf of herself and other taxpaying electors, against Denver and its auditor, praying that an ordinance, and contract pursuant thereto, for the purchase of voting machines from Shoup be adjudged illegal, and that execution of such contract be enjoined. Automatic joined therein as party plaintiff. Shoup intervened as a defendant and filed…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Mumme v. MarrsTexas Supreme Court · 1931
- Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Automatic Registering MacHine Co. v. Pima CountyArizona Supreme Court · 1930
- Hammond v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Board of Comm'rs of City and County of Denver v. Home Savings BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- E.B. Jones Construction Co. v. City & County of DenverColorado Court of Appeals · 1986
- Holtz v. BabcockMontana Supreme Court · 1963
- Hylton v. Mayor and City Council of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1973
- McCray v. City of BoulderSupreme Court of Colorado · 1968
- Davison v. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS OF PARK CTY.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.