Legal Opinion · Concurrence

McInnish v. Bennett

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 21, 2014No. 1120465Published

1ConcurrenceBolin, Justice

I concur with this Court’s no-opinion affirmance of this case. However, I write specially because I respectfully disagree with Chief Justice Moore’s dissent to the extent that it concludes that the Secretary of State presently has an affirmative duty to investigate the qualifications of a candidate for President of the United States of America before printing that candidate’s name on the general-election ballot in this State. I fully agree with the desired result; however, I do not agree that Alabama presently has a defined means to obtain it.2

Initially, Chief Justice Moore addresses certain…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Asarco Inc. v. KadishSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Bush v. GoreSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. Keyes v. BowenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  4. Ex Parte GrubbsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1989
  5. In Re Nomination Paper of NaderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

6 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