State ex rel. Marshall v. Down
| Decision Date | 03 June 1937 |
| Docket Number | 3200. |
| Citation | 68 P.2d 567,58 Nev. 54 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. MARSHALL v. DOWN et al. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Original prohibition proceeding by the State, on the relation of George E. Marshall, against James H. Down and others.
Proceeding dismissed.
George E. Marshall, of Las Vegas, pro se.
Ryland G. Taylor, City Atty., Ham & Taylor, and Gray Gubler, all of Las Vegas, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding in prohibition.
The petitioner alleges that at all times mentioned the city of Las Vegas is a municipal corporation, organized and existing pursuant to an act of the Legislature approved March 16, 1911 (Laws 1911, c. 132), and amendments thereof; that certain individuals constitute the board of commissioners of said city; that Leonard L. Arnett is the duly elected, qualified and acting mayor thereof; and that Viola Burns is the city clerk of said city.
It is further averred that pursuant to the provisions of the charter of said city it is provided that on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May, 1937, there shall be elected at an election to be held in said city the following officers of said city, namely: Two city commissioners, one city attorney, one municipal judge, and one city clerk; and that said general election was ordered by the board of commissioners of said city prior to the first Monday in March, 1937; that relator is a duly qualified and nominated candidate for city attorney of said city, to be voted for at said election.
It is further averred that said Arnett, individually and as mayor of said city, did, during the months of March and April 1937, circulate and cause to be circulated certain petitions providing for amending the city charter of said city and for the purpose of depriving relator from having his name and the names of other candidates for the office of city attorney to be placed upon the ballot and to be voted upon at the election to be held in the month of May, 1937, as heretofore recited.
It is further alleged that the respondent Burns intends to file said petitions in the office of the city clerk of said city and that the respondents, members of the board of commissioners of said city, and the mayor thereof, will by resolution approve and adopt said proposed amendment to the city charter of said city.
The petition makes certain allegations of fraud and formal allegations not necessary to herein set forth.
Respon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cegavske v. Hollowood
...erred in concluding that the Secretary of State was subject to a writ of prohibition in this context.1 See State ex rel. Marshall v. Down , 58 Nev. 54, 57, 68 P.2d 567, 567 (1937) (concluding that enacting an amendment to a city charter after it had been approved was ministerial and not jud......
-
Mineral County v. STATE, DEPT. OF CONSERV.
...omitted). 19. State ex rel. Dep't Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 361, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983). 20. See State v. Down Et Al., 58 Nev. 54, 57, 68 P.2d 567, 568 (1937). 21. See Smith v. District Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991); Walcott v. Wells, 21 Nev. 47, 24 P. 367 2......