Legal Opinion · Dissent

Latham v. Molpus

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1994No. 94-CA-00900Published

1DissentHawkins, Chief Justice

Because the majority, incorrectly applies the existing law to the facts of this case, depriving the electorate of their choice in an election, I must respectfully dissent.

I

Robert C. “Bob” Latham is entitled to be a candidate. Latham was qualified as a substitute candidate under Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-317 (1990 rev.). Like Latham, the majority of the current candidates for the judiciary elections were qualified according to Mississippi law under Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-971 (1990 rev.). The Secretary of State, in his brief, admits that Latham was a qualified candidate under the law existing in…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Smith v. AllwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. State Ex Rel. Moore v. MolpusMississippi Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Brenda Curtis v. James R. ThompsonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
  4. Meeks v. Tallahatchie CountyMississippi Supreme Court · 1987
  5. State v. HallMississippi Supreme Court · 1966

14 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