Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Hocknell v. Roper

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided January 9, 1896No. 7387PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Read the full summary

Rehearing of original application for mandamus to compel the county officers of Red Willow county to remove their offices from Indianola to McCook. For former opinion, see 46 Neb., 724. Heard on motion of relator to strike out portions of the answers. The issues are stated by the commissioner. The material matters set forth in the answers which the relator has moved to strike out involve the decisión of a political question, and may not be tried in a court upon which jurisdiction has not been conferred by the legislature. (Wright v. Fawcett, 42 Tex., 203; Parmeter v. Bourne, 35 Pac. Rep.…

1Opinion of the Court

Irvine, C.

This is the same case which was before the court some months ago and in which an opinion was filed denying the writ prayed for. (State v. Roper, 46 Neb., 724.) The decision was based upon the ground that the application did *734not show that the relator was entitled to the relief sought. A rehearing was allowed on relator’s motion. .Certain petitions of intervention, accompanied by answers, were filed, and the case is now presented on the motion of the relator to strike out portions of these answers. The former opinion discloses the material allegations of the application. The…

2Cases cited18 opinions

State ex rel. Willard v. StearnsNebraska Supreme Court · 1881
State ex rel. Norton v. Van CampNebraska Supreme Court · 1893
Hagge v. State ex rel. WisemanNebraska Supreme Court · 1880
State ex rel. Meckling v. JaynesNebraska Supreme Court · 1886
State ex rel. Whittemore v. PeacockNebraska Supreme Court · 1884

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

3Cited by3 opinions

Town of Eufaula v. GibsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
State ex rel. Short v. ClausenWashington Supreme Court · 1913
State ex rel. Hocknell v. RoperNebraska Supreme Court · 1896