Actions for usurpation of office.
An action may be brought in the name of the people of the state against any person who usurps, intrudes into, holds or exercises any office or franchise, real or pretended, within this state, without authority of law. Such action shall be brought by the prosecuting attorney of the proper county, when the office or franchise relates to a county, precinct or city, and when such office or franchise relates to the state, by the attorney general; and it shall be the duty of the proper officer, upon proper showing, to bring such action whenever he has reason to believe that any such office or franchise has been usurped, intruded into, held or exercised without authority of law. Any person rightfully entitled to an office or franchise may bring an action in his own name against the person who has usurped, intruded into, or who holds or exercises the same.
Notes of Decisions
People ex rel. Neilson v. Wilkins, 614 P.2d 417 (Idaho 1980).
· cites it 36× “As the Gooding County Prosecutor declined to prosecute Wilkins, the Office of the Attorney General appointed a Special Prosecutor who filed a complaint seeking Wilkins' removal from office pursuant to I.C. § 6-602 in June of 1977. During these occurrences, Wilkins has continued…”
Sells v. Robinson, 118 P.3d 99 (Idaho 2005).
· cites it 2× “The district court applied the doctrine of merger, finding that the REPSA was merged into the deed and, therefore, only the terms of the deed would be considered.”
State ex rel. Roark v. City of Hailey, 633 P.2d 576 (Idaho 1981).
· cites it 2× “The prosecuting attorney then commenced this action by filing an “Information in quo warranto ” pursuant to I.C. § 6-602. 1 The first question presented is whether the annexation ordinance was rendered invalid because of violations of the Idaho Open Meetings Act, I.”
Ore-Ida Potato Prods., Inc. v. United Pac. Ins., 392 P.2d 191 (Idaho 1964).
· cites it 2× “It was asserted that "all" was therein used "in its most inclusive sense and thereby evidences the legislative intent to extend the Act to all livestock coming *197 into Oregon from other states even before they have ceased to be a part of the flow of interstate commerce.”
Potvin v. Vill. of Chubbuck, 284 P.2d 414 (Idaho 1955).
· cites it 2× “A quo warranto proceeding could be maintained, Section 6-602, I.C. Quo warranto proceedings are not the exclusive remedy for testing validity of annexation.”
State v. Keithly, 314 P.3d 146 (Idaho 2013).
· cites it 2× “Idaho Code §§ 6-605 and 6-606 provide the remedies available to individual plaintiffs.”
Gowey v. Siggelkow, 382 P.2d 764 (Idaho 1963).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff (appellant) brought this action under authority of I.C. § 6-602 to procure a judgment adjudging him to be the rightful chairman of the board of trustees of the village of Garden City, in Ada co.”
Parsons v. Beebe, 777 P.2d 1224 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “At common law, the writ of quo warranto was initiated against any individual who claimed or usurped an office or franchise, to determine what authority, if any, supported that individual’s claim or right to office. Storti and Bush, Other Special Proceedings in State and Federal…”
Templeton v. Hogue, 867 P.2d 1004 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “The complaint also sought a decree quieting title to that portion of the property over which Hogue had constructed the roadway, a permanent injunction against his use of the roadway, treble damages pursuant to I.C. § 6-602, punitive damages and attorney’s fees.”
State v. Keithly (Idaho 2013).
· cites it 2× “Idaho Code §§ 6-605 and 6-606 provide the remedies available to individual plaintiffs.”
Tiegs v. Patterson, 336 P.2d 687 (Idaho 1959).
“Cases to the contrary appear to be under statutes materially different from our Sections 6-602 and 34 — 2001, I.C., which are set out and discussed in Tiegs v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.