Helmkamp v. Livonia City Council

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the plaintiffs in an election case “were not required to show a substantial injury distinct from that suffered by the public in general”
• holding that the plaintiffs in an election case \were not required to show a substantial injury distinct from that suffered by the public in general\
• “[I]n the absence of a statute to the contrary, ... a private person .. . may enforce by mandamus a public right or duty relating to elections without showing a special interest distinct from the interest of the public.” [Quotation marks omitted.]
• “[I]n the absence of a statute to the contrary, . . . a private person . . . may enforce by mandamus a public right or duty relating to elections without showing a special interest distinct from the interest of the public.” [Quotation marks omitted.]
• “[I]n the absence of a statute to the contrary, . . . a private person . . . may enforce by mandamus a public right or duty relating to elections without showing a special interest distinct from the interest of the public.” [Quotation marks omitted.]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).