State ex rel. Brewster v. Ross
Supreme Court of Kansas
Original proceeding in mandamus.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by .
Mason, J.:
Some of the fees required of the exhibitors of moving pictures for their inspection under the censorship statute of 1913 (Gen. Stat. 1915, §§ 10774-10781) have been paid to the state superintendent of public instruction under protest, the validity of the act referred to being challenged. *378To determine that matter the attorney-general brings this action, seeking by mandamus to obtain an order directing the superintendent to pay to the state treasurer the amount so collected, all claimants of the fund being joined as parties. A number of film…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina Board of AgricultureSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Red "C" Oil Manufacturing Co. v. Board of AgricultureSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- New Mexico Ex Rel. E. J. McLean & Co. v. Denver & Rio Grande RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- D. E. Foote & Co. v. StanleySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1917
- Kittredge v. BoydSupreme Court of Kansas · 1933
- City of Beloit v. LambornSupreme Court of Kansas · 1958
- M. W. Watson, Inc. v. City of TopekaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1965
- Peterson Oil Co. v. FrarySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.