Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

284 Mo. 353

223 S.W 571

Carson v. Sullivan

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided July 28, 1920

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1920-07-28

— Hon. J. O. Slate, Judge. (1) Respondents are executive or administrative officers of the State of Missouri and are amenable to injunction when they attempt to do what they ought not do. Sec. 6750, R. S. 1909; Merchants’ Exchange v. Knott, 212 Mo.. 616; Ex Parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441; Symth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41.8. (2) Appellant, as a taxpayer and citizen of the State of Missouri, is authorized and entitled to prosecute this action.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded (with directions) · Decided 1920-07-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2019

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

401920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*363 LEAVES, J.

¶1 (concurring). — I concur in paragraphs one and two of this opinion and in the result of the opinion. I thus concur solely for the reason that there is a Federal question in the case, and our freedom of action is foreclosed by the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in State of Bhode Island v. Palmer, cited in the opinion of Walker, C. J. I do not agree to the line of reasoning in the Palmer case, supra, and hence this separate concurrence. Nor do I agree to the ruling in Hawke v. Smith (the Ohio case), decided by the United States Supreme Court, 40 Sup. Ct. Bep. 495. In my judgment, the people become as much a part of the Legislature in states having the initiative and referendum in their constitutions, as the two branches of the legislative body. I further believe that the term “Legislature,” as used in the Federal Constitution, means the legislative processes of the State at the time the Federal amendment is submitted for State action, and does not mean the legislative processes or procedure at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. But we are bound by the views of the Federal court, and I therefore concur as above indicated.

Blair, J., concurs in these views, and withdraws his absolute concurrence in the majority opinion.
/284/mo/353 · .json · Public domain