Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

McRell v. Jackson

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 8, 1977No. 76-440Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree with the majority’s position that the closing of two schools is a legitimate area of public concern and that the board was under a duty to hold an election pursuant to the petition. I cannot join in their decision to affirm the trial court and disagree with their reasons for doing so. Mandamus was and still is appropriate and should be granted.

Having first decided that the school board was under a duty to hold the election, a conclusion with which I agree, the majority proceeds to hold the action of the trial…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Yarrow v. LuedersIllinois Supreme Court · 1919
  2. People Ex Rel. Killeen v. Kankakee School District No. 11Illinois Supreme Court · 1971
  3. People Ex Rel. Stoffel v. Town of CiceroIllinois Supreme Court · 1949
  4. People Ex Rel. Arnd v. HeckardIllinois Supreme Court · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API