State Ex Rel. Mar. Co. Dem. Com. v. Sup. Ct. Mar. Co.

Indiana Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Mar. Co. Dem. Com. v. Sup. Ct. Mar. Co.

15 N.E.2d 379, 214 Ind. 322, 1938 Ind. LEXIS 181

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJune 10, 1938

DocketNo. 27,069.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 15 N.E.2d 379 (State Ex Rel. Mar. Co. Dem. Com. v. Sup. Ct. Mar. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. Mar. Co. Dem. Com. v. Sup. Ct. Mar. Co., 15 N.E.2d 379, 214 Ind. 322, 1938 Ind. LEXIS 181 (Ind. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action seeking a writ of prohibition. Upon the filing of the petition, a temporary writ issued, and, after a response and hearing, the writ was made permanent.

The respondent court, with Royal A. Nicholas, acting as Judge Pro Tem, sitting as a court of equity, entered and issued a restraining order, restraining the petitioners, the Marion County Democratic Committee and its officers, from printing, circulating, distributing, or using, slates of candidates to be voted for at the Primary Election, and from taking steps for the furtherance of the candidacy of any particular candidate.

Courts of equity have no jurisdiction to interfere in the purely political activities of political party organizations, and a writ of prohibition will lie forbidding the enforcement of an injunction in respect to such matters. State ex rel. Coffin v.Superior Court of Marion County et al. (1925), 196 Ind. 614,

*Page 323 149 N.E. 174; State ex rel. Coffin v. Marion Circuit Court (1925),199 Ind. 4, 145 N.E. 883; State ex rel. Blaize et al. v. Hoover,Judge (1936), 210 Ind. 215, 2 N.E.2d 391.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This is an action seeking a writ of prohibition. Upon the filing of the petition, a temporary writ issued, and, after a response and hearing, the writ was made permanent.

The respondent court, with Royal A. Nicholas, acting as Judge Pro Tem, sitting as a court of equity, entered and issued a restraining order, restraining the petitioners, the Marion County Democratic Committee and its officers, from printing, circulating, distributing, or using, slates of candidates to be voted for at the Primary Election, and from taking steps for the furtherance of the candidacy of any particular candidate.

Courts of equity have no jurisdiction to interfere in the purely political activities of political party organizations, and a writ of prohibition will lie forbidding the enforcement of an injunction in respect to such matters. State ex rel. Coffin v.Superior Court of Marion County et al. (1925), 196 Ind. 614,

*Page 323 149 N.E. 174; State ex rel. Coffin v. Marion Circuit Court (1925),199 Ind. 4, 145 N.E. 883; State ex rel. Blaize et al. v. Hoover,Judge (1936), 210 Ind. 215, 2 N.E.2d 391.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.E.2d 379, 214 Ind. 322, 1938 Ind. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mar-co-dem-com-v-sup-ct-mar-co-ind-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack