Madden v. Houck

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that declaratory relief was improper because the plaintiff could have filed a quo warranto action to receive the desired remedy instead of a declaratory judgment action
• holding the trial court erred in not granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for declaratory judgment alleging defendant was not qualified to hold office because declaratory judgment would not necessarily fully resolve the question
• where plaintiff sought declaratory judgment that defendant was not qualified to act as surveyor, court held that action in quo warranto was the proper means of seeking relief
• the Declaratory Judgment Act “was not intended to eliminate well-known causes of action, where the issues are ripe for litigation Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 77A01-1504-PL-132 | November 25, 2015 Page 3 of 5 through the usual processes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).