Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Wallace v. Howell

Texas Supreme Court

Decided March 12, 1986No. C-5034Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGonzalez, Justice

I agree with the court’s denial of Howell’s writ of mandamus. However, I disagree with the court’s grant of Wallace’s writ of mandamus and its holding that Howell is ineligible to run for Place 3 on the Supreme Court. Therefore, I respectfully dissent for two reasons: one, the majority confuses strict compliance with strict interpretation of the Election Code; and two, under the facts of this case, the majority’s strict interpretation of the Election Code provisions on filing and withdrawal is inappropriate for determining Howell’s election eligibility.

The court relies on § 141.033 of the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Anderson v. CelebrezzeSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Bullock v. CarterSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Willis v. PottsTexas Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Burroughs Knight v. Lyles, Co. Chm.Texas Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Strake v. Court of Appeals for the First Supreme Judicial DistrictTexas Supreme Court · 1986

12 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