State ex rel. Kenamore v. Wood
Supreme Court of Missouri
Prohibition. (1) It is not necessary, in order to justify resort to prohibition, that the proceedings of the lower court should be so far beyond its legitimate authority that they would be held void in a collateral proceeding.
Read the full summary
Prohibition. (1) It is not necessary, in order to justify resort to prohibition, that the proceedings of the lower court should be so far beyond its legitimate authority that they would be held void in a collateral proceeding. “Where a court or judge assumes to exercise a judicial power not granted by law, it matters not (so far as concerns the right to a prohibition) whether the exhibition of power occurs in a case which the court is not authorized to entertain at all, or is merely an excessive and unauthorized application of judicial force in a cause otherwise properly cognizable by the…
1DissentBurgess, J.
I respectfully dissent from the opinion rendered in this ease by a majority of the court, which holds that the St. Louis Circuit Court was without jurisdiction of the subject-matter of controversy in the injunction proceeding and that prohibition would lie against the judge of the court before whom the proceeding was pending to prevent him from proceeding with the case, and to annul the restraining order which had theretofore been issued in the case. .
The petition in that case omitting the formal parts is as follows:
“Plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf of themselves and all others in the…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- In Re DebsSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Cooper v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Dows v. City of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Mayor of Baltimore v. RadeckeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1878
- Chae Chan Ping v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.