Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Lindley v. MacCabees

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1924No. 18233PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.

Under the common law, because franchises emanated from and public offices were under the control of the crown, the writ of quo warranto was never employed by a private individual to test the usurpation or misuser of a franchise, or to challenge the title to the office. The writ could only be employed by the crown at the instance of its own officers, usually the Attorney General. The function of the writ was to protect the rights of the crown against the usurpation of governmental prerogatives, and thus safeguard the public interests. The right to use the information on the relation of a…

2Cited by19 opinions

  1. Chase National Bank v. City of NorwalkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. State ex rel. Coyne v. TodiaOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State ex rel. Battin v. BushOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State ex rel. Annable v. StokesOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  5. State ex rel. Halak v. CebulaOhio Supreme Court · 1977

14 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