Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Smith v. Flournoy

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided December 3, 1959No. Nos. 9156-9162Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHardy, Judge

In view of the well established jurisprudence of our courts, which clearly enunciates the general rule that a public official is without interest or right to question the constitutionality of a statute under the provisions of which a duty is sought to be compelled in a mandamus proceeding, I concur in the judgment of this court as set forth in the majority opinion with reference to Suits Nos. 9156, 9158, 9159 and 9162, each of which is entitled Stanley J. Smith, et als. v. Mrs. Mary Flournoy, Registrar of Voters for Winn Parish.

However, I am in emphatic disagreement with the conclusions of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Smith v. FlournoySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1959
  2. State ex rel. Union Cent. Life Ins. v. DunnSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API