State ex rel. Clapp v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Quo warranto.
1Opinion of the Court
Mitchell, J.1
Proceedings upon information in the nature of quo warranto, filed by the attorney general against respondent, to show cause tjhy its franchises should not be declared forfeited and the corporation dissolved. In justice to this court, as well as-to the attorney general, it is proper at the outset to correct an error into which respondent’s counsel have fallen. They have repeatedly asserted, both in their briefs and in their oral arguments, that the attorney general has filed a disclaimer of any interest in these proceedings on his own part or on part of the state. An inspection of…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Barnum v. GilmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Board of County Commissioners v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Ames v. Lake Superior & Mississippi RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Knight v. NorrisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1868
- State v. City of Lake CitySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by70 opinions
- Breimhorst v. BeckmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- Willis v. MabonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- State v. StrasburgWashington Supreme Court · 1910
- State ex rel. Mullen v. DohertyWashington Supreme Court · 1897
- State v. Williams-WalkerWashington Supreme Court · 2010
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.