Legal Opinion · Dissent

Horton v. Gillespie

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 11, 1926Published

1Dissent

I maintain that the conclusion of the majority is erroneous for two sufficient reasons: (A), that the statute regulating the manner of presenting petitions for pardons is, so far as it affects the power of the Governor, merely directory, and that his failure to require observance of the statute does not invalidate a pardon; (B), that, even if the statute be held to be mandatory, the courts, in testing the validity of a pardon, must indulge the conclusive presumption that the Governor has correctly found and decided that the statute has been complied with.

In the first place, the statute bears…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Willis v. MabonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
  2. Hester v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
  3. Gherna v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Booe v. Road Improvement District No. 4Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
  5. Thompson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1870

20 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