State v. Howell
Superior Court of Delaware
Mandamus. Rule issued requiring the respondent to show cause why an alternative writ of mandamus should not issue as prayed for. Motion by respondent to discharge the rule and dismiss the proceedings in the cause for certain reasons based upon the alleged insufficiency of the relator’s petition. The court in the following opinion held the reasons insufficient to prevent the issuance of the alternative writ, and the rule was made absolute.
1Opinion of the Court
Pennewill, C.J.,
delivering the opinion of the court:
In the above stated case a rule was issued requiring the respondent to show cause^why an alternative writ of mandamus should not issue as prayed for.
The respondent moves the court to discharge the rule and dismiss the proceedings in the cause for the following reasons, based upon the alleged insufficiency of the plaintiff’s petition, viz.:(1) Because it does not show that the contract referred to has been examined and approved by the city solicitor for the mayor and council of Wilmington as provided by an ordinance of the City of…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- City of Salem v. Eastern RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Spinney v. DowningCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Mazet v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Dement v. RokkerIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
- Edge Moor Bridge Works v. County of BristolMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Covington v. Basich Bros. Const. Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1951
- Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
- Covington v. Basich Bros. Const. Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1951