6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1904–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Inf. Nixon v. Kindergreen2 sentences2012Its original purpose was to inquire into the legality of the claim of one who purported to have the right to enjoy and exercise a particular office granted by the Crown.” State v. Kinder, 89 S.W.3d 454, 457 (Mo. banc 2002). 2012The sole purpose of a quo warranto proceeding is to “prevent an officer or a corporation or persons purporting to act as such from usurping a power which they do not have.” Id. (quoting State ex inf. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Inf. McKittrick v. Murphygreen2 sentences1978At common law it “was one of the ancient high prerogative writs of right for the King by which inquiry was made into the legality of the claim of one who purported to have the right to enjoy and exercise an office, right or privilege granted by the Crown, and by which a usurper of such royal franchise was ousted.” Mo. Bar CLE, Appellate Practice and Extraordinary Remedies—Quo Warranto at 10-2 (2d ed. 1974); See also State v. Murphy, 347 Mo. 484 , 148 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Mo. banc 1941). 1978At common law it “was one of the ancient high prerogative writs of right for the King by which inquiry was made into the legality of the claim of one who purported to have the right to enjoy and exercise an office, right or privilege granted by the Crown, and by which a usurper of such royal franchise was ousted.” Mo. Bar CLE, Appellate Practice and Extraordinary Remedies—Quo Warranto at 10-2 (2d ed. 1974); See also State v. Murphy, 347 Mo. 484 , 148 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Mo. banc 1941). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Kolb v. County Court of St. Charles County
green
1 sentence1994The trial court was authorized to hear additional evidence only for the purposes of proving what evidence was before the county court or of proving any fact touching upon the legality of the hearing. 683 S.W.2d at 322 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State ex rel. First National Bank v. Cook
neutral
1 sentence1931In State v. Cook, 43 Neb. 318 , 324, involving the payment of a warrant drawn on a city treasurer and later annulled by a like order, the court said: "This must be true when the body allowing the claim has not been given authority to act judicially in determining the legality of the claim. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Lovelady v. Loveman, Joseph & Loeb
neutral
2 sentences1926As a general rule *539 a disbursing' officer cannot pass upon the legality of a claim where it has been allowed by a board or other officer having authority to act in the premises, except in the case of fraud or mistake. [26 Cyc. 318.] [See, also, State ex rel. v. Meeker, 182 Ind. 240 , 105 N. E. 906 ; City of Paducah v. Board, 146 Ky. 636 , 143 S. W. 1 ; Lovelady v. Loveman, 191 Ala. 96 , 68 So. 48 ; Jobe v. Caldwell & Drake, 93 Ark. 503 , 125 S. W. 423 .] In the case last cited, it is said: ‘ ‘ The state auditor acts in a ministerial capacity in issuing- warrants on certificates of an office 1926As a general rule *539 a disbursing' officer cannot pass upon the legality of a claim where it has been allowed by a board or other officer having authority to act in the premises, except in the case of fraud or mistake. [26 Cyc. 318.] [See, also, State ex rel. v. Meeker, 182 Ind. 240 , 105 N. E. 906 ; City of Paducah v. Board, 146 Ky. 636 , 143 S. W. 1 ; Lovelady v. Loveman, 191 Ala. 96 , 68 So. 48 ; Jobe v. Caldwell & Drake, 93 Ark. 503 , 125 S. W. 423 .] In the case last cited, it is said: ‘ ‘ The state auditor acts in a ministerial capacity in issuing- warrants on certificates of an office | 1 | 1926–1926 |
State ex rel. Hawes v. Mason
green
2 sentences1926In the case of State ex rel. v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23 , 54 S. W. 524 , it is said: “The general rule is that when a claim has been allowed by the board or officer charged by law with the duty of passing on its validity or amount, it then becomes the duty of the auditor to audit the same and draw his warrant on the disbursing officer.” As we view the law and the facts presented herein, we must conclude that the duty of the county court was purely ministerial; and it was the duty of the county court to issue the warrant upon the voucher of the board of trustees as presented. 1926In the case of State ex rel. v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23 , 54 S. W. 524 , it is said: “The general rule is that when a claim has been allowed by the board or officer charged by law with the duty of passing on its validity or amount, it then becomes the duty of the auditor to audit the same and draw his warrant on the disbursing officer.” As we view the law and the facts presented herein, we must conclude that the duty of the county court was purely ministerial; and it was the duty of the county court to issue the warrant upon the voucher of the board of trustees as presented. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
State ex rel. Moberly Special Road District v. Burton
neutral
2 sentences1926As a general rule *539 a disbursing' officer cannot pass upon the legality of a claim where it has been allowed by a board or other officer having authority to act in the premises, except in the case of fraud or mistake. [26 Cyc. 318.] [See, also, State ex rel. v. Meeker, 182 Ind. 240 , 105 N. E. 906 ; City of Paducah v. Board, 146 Ky. 636 , 143 S. W. 1 ; Lovelady v. Loveman, 191 Ala. 96 , 68 So. 48 ; Jobe v. Caldwell & Drake, 93 Ark. 503 , 125 S. W. 423 .] In the case last cited, it is said: ‘ ‘ The state auditor acts in a ministerial capacity in issuing- warrants on certificates of an office 1926As a general rule *539 a disbursing' officer cannot pass upon the legality of a claim where it has been allowed by a board or other officer having authority to act in the premises, except in the case of fraud or mistake. [26 Cyc. 318.] [See, also, State ex rel. v. Meeker, 182 Ind. 240 , 105 N. E. 906 ; City of Paducah v. Board, 146 Ky. 636 , 143 S. W. 1 ; Lovelady v. Loveman, 191 Ala. 96 , 68 So. 48 ; Jobe v. Caldwell & Drake, 93 Ark. 503 , 125 S. W. 423 .] In the case last cited, it is said: ‘ ‘ The state auditor acts in a ministerial capacity in issuing- warrants on certificates of an office | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Jobe v. Caldwell
green
2 sentences1926As a general rule *539 a disbursing' officer cannot pass upon the legality of a claim where it has been allowed by a board or other officer having authority to act in the premises, except in the case of fraud or mistake. [26 Cyc. 318.] [See, also, State ex rel. v. Meeker, 182 Ind. 240 , 105 N. E. 906 ; City of Paducah v. Board, 146 Ky. 636 , 143 S. W. 1 ; Lovelady v. Loveman, 191 Ala. 96 , 68 So. 48 ; Jobe v. Caldwell & Drake, 93 Ark. 503 , 125 S. W. 423 .] In the case last cited, it is said: ‘ ‘ The state auditor acts in a ministerial capacity in issuing- warrants on certificates of an office 1926As a general rule *539 a disbursing' officer cannot pass upon the legality of a claim where it has been allowed by a board or other officer having authority to act in the premises, except in the case of fraud or mistake. [26 Cyc. 318.] [See, also, State ex rel. v. Meeker, 182 Ind. 240 , 105 N. E. 906 ; City of Paducah v. Board, 146 Ky. 636 , 143 S. W. 1 ; Lovelady v. Loveman, 191 Ala. 96 , 68 So. 48 ; Jobe v. Caldwell & Drake, 93 Ark. 503 , 125 S. W. 423 .] In the case last cited, it is said: ‘ ‘ The state auditor acts in a ministerial capacity in issuing- warrants on certificates of an office | 1 | 1926–1926 |
State ex rel. Simpson v. Meeker
green
2 sentences1926As a general rule *539 a disbursing' officer cannot pass upon the legality of a claim where it has been allowed by a board or other officer having authority to act in the premises, except in the case of fraud or mistake. [26 Cyc. 318.] [See, also, State ex rel. v. Meeker, 182 Ind. 240 , 105 N. E. 906 ; City of Paducah v. Board, 146 Ky. 636 , 143 S. W. 1 ; Lovelady v. Loveman, 191 Ala. 96 , 68 So. 48 ; Jobe v. Caldwell & Drake, 93 Ark. 503 , 125 S. W. 423 .] In the case last cited, it is said: ‘ ‘ The state auditor acts in a ministerial capacity in issuing- warrants on certificates of an office 1926As a general rule *539 a disbursing' officer cannot pass upon the legality of a claim where it has been allowed by a board or other officer having authority to act in the premises, except in the case of fraud or mistake. [26 Cyc. 318.] [See, also, State ex rel. v. Meeker, 182 Ind. 240 , 105 N. E. 906 ; City of Paducah v. Board, 146 Ky. 636 , 143 S. W. 1 ; Lovelady v. Loveman, 191 Ala. 96 , 68 So. 48 ; Jobe v. Caldwell & Drake, 93 Ark. 503 , 125 S. W. 423 .] In the case last cited, it is said: ‘ ‘ The state auditor acts in a ministerial capacity in issuing- warrants on certificates of an office | 1 | 1926–1926 |
City of Paducah v. Board of Education of Paducah
neutral
2 sentences1926As a general rule *539 a disbursing' officer cannot pass upon the legality of a claim where it has been allowed by a board or other officer having authority to act in the premises, except in the case of fraud or mistake. [26 Cyc. 318.] [See, also, State ex rel. v. Meeker, 182 Ind. 240 , 105 N. E. 906 ; City of Paducah v. Board, 146 Ky. 636 , 143 S. W. 1 ; Lovelady v. Loveman, 191 Ala. 96 , 68 So. 48 ; Jobe v. Caldwell & Drake, 93 Ark. 503 , 125 S. W. 423 .] In the case last cited, it is said: ‘ ‘ The state auditor acts in a ministerial capacity in issuing- warrants on certificates of an office 1926As a general rule *539 a disbursing' officer cannot pass upon the legality of a claim where it has been allowed by a board or other officer having authority to act in the premises, except in the case of fraud or mistake. [26 Cyc. 318.] [See, also, State ex rel. v. Meeker, 182 Ind. 240 , 105 N. E. 906 ; City of Paducah v. Board, 146 Ky. 636 , 143 S. W. 1 ; Lovelady v. Loveman, 191 Ala. 96 , 68 So. 48 ; Jobe v. Caldwell & Drake, 93 Ark. 503 , 125 S. W. 423 .] In the case last cited, it is said: ‘ ‘ The state auditor acts in a ministerial capacity in issuing- warrants on certificates of an office | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Johnson v. Jones
green
1 sentence1904The court said: “But though a fine for misdemeanor may be imposed, just as a judgment for money may be rendered, without the defendant being present, yet it is indispensable to validity of both that the person against whom the- charge is made or recovery is sought have notice of -the proceeding against him, so he may deny and call for proof of the charge or of the legality of claim against him; and it is so plain as to be generally held that a judg ment rendered without such notice is, and ought to he, treated as absolutely void; and it is equally plain that the defendant in all cases should h | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Bramlett v. McVey
green
1 sentence1904The court said: “But though a fine for misdemeanor may be imposed, just as a judgment for money may be rendered, without the defendant being present, yet it is indispensable to validity of both that the person against whom the- charge is made or recovery is sought have notice of -the proceeding against him, so he may deny and call for proof of the charge or of the legality of claim against him; and it is so plain as to be generally held that a judg ment rendered without such notice is, and ought to he, treated as absolutely void; and it is equally plain that the defendant in all cases should h | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.