Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

State Ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Maitland

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided December 20, 1922PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.

After the rejection of one opinion this case has fallen to me for disposition.

Quo Warranto ex informations the Attorney General, at the relation of one Callaghan. The respondents, Maitland, Edwards, Rotchschild and Bryant, claim to be what is known as the Water Commissioners of Kansas City. By this action it is charged that these parties as the so-called Water Commission of Kansas City, or Water Commissioners of Kansas City, have usurped and exercised powers not granted to them by authority of law, and ouster is prayed.

In 1921 two amendments to the Kansas City Charter were proposed, and by…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. McClurg v. PowellMississippi Supreme Court · 1900
  2. State Ex Rel. Pollock v. BeckerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1921
  3. State ex rel. City of Bethany v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
  4. Southworth v. Mayor of GlasgowSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State v. City of North Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1950
  2. Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. BluntSupreme Court of Missouri · 1990
  3. State Ex Rel. Board of Fund Commissioners v. HolmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
  4. State Ex Rel. Attorney-General v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1925
  5. State Ex Rel. Harry L. Hussman Refrigerator & Supply Co. v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API