Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Pittman v. Ingram

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 15, 1937No. 11766Published

1ConcurrenceJenkins, Justice

When the opinion in this case was originally handed down, I agreed to the conclusion arrived at by Justice Atkinson, but stated in a special concurrence then filed that in my opinion, since the court was holding that the incumbent was not subject to ouster, for the reason that he held a right to the office, it ought to be stated just what this right was which the court was adjudicating to be valid. In a motion for rehearing by the appointee, as well as in the response thereto filed by the incumbent, it is urged that the tenure of the incumbent be defined. In view of the special concurrence…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Southern Railway Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
  2. Heidt v. MinorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Continental Life Insurance v. HouserIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Stansall v. Columbian National Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API