Ulrich v. O'Brien

Indiana Supreme Court

Ulrich v. O'Brien

71 N.E. 1142, 162 Ind. 695, 1904 Ind. LEXIS 106

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJune 1, 1904

DocketNo. 20,309

StatusPublished

This text of 71 N.E. 1142 (Ulrich v. O'Brien) 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

Ulrich v. O'Brien, 71 N.E. 1142, 162 Ind. 695, 1904 Ind. LEXIS 106 (Ind. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Dowling, J.

The errors assigned and discussed in the brief of counsel for appellants in this case are identical with those in Brooks v. State, ex rel., ante, 568. The only matter in controversy is the validity of the apportionment act of March 9, 1903.

[696]*696On the authority of Brooks v. State, ex. rel., supra, and without any intimation concerning the form of the action, the party plaintiff, or the relief sought, we hold that the said act is unconstitutional, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Dowling, J.

The errors assigned and discussed in the brief of counsel for appellants in this case are identical with those in Brooks v. State, ex rel., ante, 568. The only matter in controversy is the validity of the apportionment act of March 9, 1903.

[696]*696On the authority of Brooks v. State, ex. rel., supra, and without any intimation concerning the form of the action, the party plaintiff, or the relief sought, we hold that the said act is unconstitutional, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 N.E. 1142, 162 Ind. 695, 1904 Ind. LEXIS 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ulrich-v-obrien-ind-1904.