Legal Opinion

Attorney General Ex Rel. Connolly v. Reading

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 18, 1934No. Calendar 37,987PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBtishnell, J.

Petitioners, resident electors of the city of Detroit, seek by mandamus to require compliance by tbe city election commission of tbe city of Detroit with the provisions of Act No. 176, Pub. Acts 1933.

Tbe act amends tbe general election law and provides that:

“In case four inspectors of election shall be appointed, not more than two of tbe four inspectors shall be of tbe same political party, and in case more than four such inspectors are appointed, not more than fifty per centum, as nearly as possible, of such inspectors shall be of tbe same political party.”

Similar provisions are made where…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Le Roy v. HurlbutMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
  2. People v. McMurchyMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Rogers v. . Common Council of BuffaloNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  4. Attorney General v. Board of CouncilmenMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Attorney General ex rel. Conely v. Common CouncilMichigan Supreme Court · 1889

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Evans Products Co. v. State Board of EscheatsMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Nelson v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
  3. Dearborn Township Clerk v. JonesMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Nelson v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
  5. Bay Trust Co. v. Agricultural Life Ins.Michigan Supreme Court · 1937

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

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

Powered by the Exa API