Legal Opinion · Dissent

State ex rel. Eastham v. Dewey

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided November 2, 1904No. 14,000Published

Original application for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to place names of candidate's on ballot.

1DissentBarnes, J.

The writ was allowed in this case over my objections, and I cannot agree to the conclusions announced in the majority opinion.

1. My associates hold that the provision of our Australian ballot law, which says: “Whenever any person nominated for public office, as in this act provided, shall at least twelve (12) days before the day of election * * * notify the officer' with whom the original certificate of his nomination was filed, in writing, signed by him, and duly *403acknowledged, that he declines such nomination, the same shall be void, and his name shall not be printed upon the ballots,” is…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Jones v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Stackpole v. HallahanMontana Supreme Court · 1895
  3. O'Connor v. TownsTexas Supreme Court · 1846
  4. In re CuddebackAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
  5. Baker v. ScottIdaho Supreme Court · 1895

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API