Legal Opinion

Buggeln v. Doe

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1904No. Civil No. 855PublishedCited by 3 opinions

PETITION for Writ of Mandamus.

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

We think the statute authorizing an action in the nature of quo warranto does not make it mandatory upon the district attorney to institute such action, unless he has reason to believe that an office or franchise is being usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised. It is, however, his duty to bring such proceedings when facts are laid before him from which he can reasonably conclude that such franchise is being usurped. If, on such showing, he fails to institute such proceedings, his action can be reviewed upon an application for mandamus; and where, upon such…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Donaghey v. Attorney GeneralArizona Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Duffield v. AshurstArizona Supreme Court · 1909
  3. State Ex Rel. Sawyer v. LaSotaArizona Supreme Court · 1978

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

Powered by the Exa API