Legal Opinion · Dissent

Turkington v. City of Kachemak

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 1963No. 177Published

1DissentArend, Justice

I feel compelled to dissent from the majority for the reason that in my opinion the trial court had no jurisdiction under Alaska law to hear and determine the ■election contest in the manner it was prosecuted in this case, and correspondingly this court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter on appeal. Although the appellees Rave not challenged our jurisdiction or that of the lower court to entertain this case, the issue is one of which we must take ■cognizance on our own motion as a self limitation.1 That is especially true in this •case because article V, section 3 of the constitution…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Gulf, Etc., Ry.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. Clement v. EverestMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  4. Faulkner v. Board of SupervisorsArizona Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885

17 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