State ex rel. Bassett v. Renick
Cases that cite this one
28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Douglass v. County of Pike (Supreme Court of the United States 1880)
- State ex rel. Woodson v. Brassfield (Mo. 1878)
- Glover v. Hot Springs Kennel Club (Ark. 1959)
- State Ex Inf. Ewing v. Sheridan Consolidated School District (Mo. 1925)
- In re Poindexter v. Pettis County (Mo. 1922)
- Lawrence County v. Lawrence Fiscal Court (Ky. Ct. App. 1921)
- Bauch v. City of Cabool (Mo. Ct. App. 1912)
- Bell v. City of Ocala (Fla. 1911)
- Ray v. Armstrong (Ky. Ct. App. 1910)
- Treat v. De Jean (S.D. 1908)
- Tucker v. McKay (Mo. Ct. App. 1908)
- In re Denny (Ind. 1901)
- Shearer v. Board of Supervisors (Mich. 1901)
- Wells v. Ragsdale (Ga. 1897)
- Citizens of De Soto Parish v. Williams (La. 1897)
- Sharp v. George (Ariz. 1896)
- Russie v. Brazzell (Mo. 1895)
- Richardson v. McReynolds (Mo. 1893)
- Lamb v. Cain (Ind. 1891)
- Rushville Gas Co. v. City of Rushville (Ind. 1889)
- State ex rel. Maggard v. Pond (Mo. 1887)
- Vance v. Austell (Ark. 1885)
- City of Fort Worth v. Davis (Tex. 1882)
- State v. Swift (Ind. 1880)
- Foote v. Johnson County (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri 1878)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a petition for a mandamus on the mayor of the city of St. Joseph, requiring him to sign and issue certain bonds of the city. The return admits the facts stated in the petition. By the Act of the General Assembly of Missouri of the 19th of December, 1865, it was provided that the mayor and council of the city of St. Joseph should cause all propositions “ to create a debt by borrowing money
The only reason given by the mayor for declining to sign the bond in question was, that he was in doubt whether the matter was to be determined by two-thirds of all the votes polled at the special election, or by two-thirds of all the voters resident in the city, absolutely, whether voting or not. We think it was sufficient that two-thirds of all the qualified voters who voted at the special election, authorized for the express purpose of determining that question, on public notice duly given, voted in favor of the proposition. This was the mode provided by law for ascertaining the sense of the qualified voters of the city upon that question. There would appear to be no o|her practicable way in which the matter could be determined.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.