Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lueck v. Teuton

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided November 12, 2009No. 53596, 54238Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGibbons, J.

I concur with the majority that movant Robert W. Lueck lacks standing to pursue quo warranto in this matter. Likewise, I agree that the constitutional appointment-term issue raised by Lueck nonetheless warrants this court’s immediate attention. From the majority’s analysis thereof, however, I must dissent.

In reaching its conclusion that Article 6, Section 20(2) of the Nevada Constitution mandates the expiration of an appointed judge’s term after the general election most immediately following the appointment, the majority accurately describes the history of that ambiguous provision. But…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Miller v. BurkNevada Supreme Court · 2008
  2. State Ex Rel. Udall v. Colonial Penn InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State ex rel. Perry v. ArringtonNevada Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Halverson v. MillerNevada Supreme Court · 2008
  5. State Ex Rel. Shirley v. LutzSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933

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