Niklaus v. Abel Construction Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that dismissal of taxpayer’s action on behalf of municipal corporation was required because “[taxpayer’s] participation in the proceedings was not casual but persistent and continuous”
• proceedings in suit by person not entitled to practice are nullity
• although required in this case, the drastic remedy of declaring a suit a nullity may not be required in all cases
• “In a taxpayer’s action potentially all of the taxpayers and citizens are parties.”
• the proceedings before the trial court, in which the appellant sued the appellee on behalf of a municipal corporation and lost, were a nullity since the appellant was not qualified to practice law and therefore could not represent the corporation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).