Legal Opinion

O'Brien v. Fuller

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided September 20, 1944No. 3502PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarble, C. J.

The defendant Roy claims that a nomination is essentially a public franchise, the right or title to which can be tested only by proceedings in the nature of quo warranto and that the present proceedings cannot be converted into that remedy since the Attorney-General is a necessary party thereto. However, the Attorney-General has appeared in behalf of the Secretary of State, and the present proceedings, by whatever name called, have resolved themselves into an inquiry as to which (if either) of the two principal contestants is entitled to prevail. Moreover, mandamus is generally held to be the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. People ex rel. McKinlay v. RoseIllinois Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Wigoda v. CousinsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1973
  2. Bontempo v. CareyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960
  3. Colby v. FullerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1950
  4. Ago, Florida Attorney General Reports1976
  5. Ago, Florida Attorney General Reports1978

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

Powered by the Exa API