State ex rel. Poole v. Robinson
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- State ex rel. Ball v. Hall (Neb. 1935)
- Rash v. Allen (Superior Court of Delaware 1910)
- State ex rel. McClay v. Mickey (Neb. 1905)
- Webster v. City of Hastings (Neb. 1898)
- Ritchie v. Richards (Utah 1896)
- Ames v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nebraska 1894)
- State ex rel. Casper v. Moore (Neb. 1893)
- State ex rel. Singleton v. Van Duyn (Neb. 1888)
- In re Groff (Neb. 1887)
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
The leading and controlling question in this case is identical with that in The State ex rel. Huff v. McLelland, 18 Neb., 236.
The case has been ably presented by counsel; the whole ground having been closely and thoroughly examined, and cases have been cited which seem to sustain the theory contended for by relator. But after a somewhat careful examination of the question, guided by the light of the constitution and law of this state, we are still of the opinion that the decision in the prior case was correct. . The journals of the legislature are made competent evidence by section 418 of the civil code, and by them it is shown that the bill in question was not passed by the legislature.
It could serve no good purpose to re-examine the question or re-discuss the principles involved, as we are satisfied with the reasoning of Judge Maxwell in The State v. McLelland.
It follows that the writ prayed for must be denied and the cause dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.