Legal Opinion

Town of Smyrna v. Ridley

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1987PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BROCK, Chief Justice.

This is an action in the nature of quo warranto by the District Attorney General on behalf of the State as provided by T.C.A., § 29-35-101, et seq., seeking to remove the defendant from the office of May- or of Smyrna, Tennessee, and to recover a forfeiture of the sums which he has received in violation of T.C.A., § 12-4-101 et seq., which forbids conflicts of interest by public officials. Joined with this quo war-ranto proceeding is an action brought by a private citizen, Neil R. Odom, on behalf of the town of Smyrna seeking to recover from the defendant the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Holmes v. WilsonTennessee Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Southern v. Beeler, Atty.-Gen.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Harbison v. Briggs Bros. Paint Mfg. Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Hope v. Hamilton CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Marion County v. Rives & McChordCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. City of New Johnsonville v. Kevin E. Handley & Gene Plant v. Kevin E. HandleyCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2005
  2. Jeremy Flax v. Daimler-Chrysler CorporationTennessee Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Thomas W. Harrison, Terry Harrison, and Brenda Harrison Kennamore v. Earl LaursenCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API