Cummings v. Mickelson
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHenderson, Justice
OVERVIEW
The following is my view on this case believing the majority's authorities support my position. A vital flaw in the majority’s holding is that it uses a historical perspective to support its conclusion, but it fails to include the history behind the phrase “voting resident.” Thus, the writing I now contribute analyzes the latter phrase and reaches the opposite result. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Significant to the issues before this Court is when Severson and Caldwell became eligible to serve as judges in their respective circuits. In Article V, § 6 of the South Dakota…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Dunn v. BlumsteinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Moore v. OgilvieSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Kneip v. HersethSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1974
- Corbly v. MathesonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.