(DOWNLOAD) "Chovanak v. Matthews" by Supreme Court of Montana # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Chovanak v. Matthews
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 14, 1948
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
1. Nuisance ? Private person may maintain action. Generally, a private person may maintain an action to abate a public nuisance if the nuisance is specially injurious to himself. 2. Action ? Determination of constitutional question not warranted. Under the rule that the constitutionality of a statute may not be determined except in an action or proceeding in behalf of a person whose special peculiar personal rights are thereby affected, it was held that the facts of the case at bar did not warrant the determination of a constitutional question. 3. Constitutional law ? Constitutional questions are decided in "real" controversies. Courts are not permitted to decide mere differences of opinion between - Page 521 citizens, or between citizens and the state, or the administrative officials of the state, as to the validity of statutes, particularly where a statute, regularly enacted by the lawmaking branch of the government, is attacked by the citizen as being in violation of some provision of the Constitution. 4. Action ? Words &; Phrases ? "Cases" and "controversies." By "cases" and "controversies," within judicial power to determine, is meant real controversies and not abstract differences of opinion or moot questions, and neither federal nor state Constitution has granted power to courts to determine abstract differences of opinion or moot questions. 5. Constitutional law ? Questions of constitutionality must be raised by party injured in a legal right. Charges of unconstitutionality of a statute cannot be considered unless raised by someone who is directly injured in a legal right by the enforcement of the statute, and then only where determination of the constitutional question is rendered necessary to protect the suitor in such invaded right. 6. Constitutional law ? Plaintiff had not sufficient interest to raise constitutional question. A plaintiff, showing only such interest as other citizens, electors, taxpayers, and residents of county had, did not show sufficient interest to invoke the exercise of judicial power to determine the statute providing for licensing of slot machines owned and operated by specified organizations to be unconstitutional in action under uniform declaratory judgments Act.
 "Chovanak v. Matthews" by Supreme Court of Montana # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}