Legal Opinion · Dissent

State ex rel. Schara v. Holmes

Montana Supreme Court

Decided April 6, 1956No. 9623Published

1Dissent

MR. JUSTICE DAVIS:

I dissent.

For the purposes of that dissent I shall assume that the conclusion which Mr. Justice Anderson reaches for the majority is as an abstract statement of the law sound, and therefore unassailable, i. e., that an appointment is indeed a nullity when the statute under which that appointment is made is not at the time a law, specifically here, because the Governor’s approval was then lacking. Montana Constitution, Art. VII, section 12. In this case, however, I do not find the premise from which this conclusion may permissibly be drawn; for the problem before us, as I see…

2Cases cited54 opinions

  1. United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
  2. Gitlow v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  3. Webster v. FallSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  4. Worthley v. WorthleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Kneeland v. EmertonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932

49 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