green
Positive treatment
2.3 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Huggins v. Superior Court
This element has led the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to reject proration in favor of nullification and resubmission to the voters “ ‘whenever the irregularity ... of the election is such that the result ... would be placed in doubt.’ ” McCavitt , 385 Mass, at 850, 434 N.E.2d at 631 (quoting Callison v. Peeples, 102 S.C. 256 , 265, 86 S.E. 635, 637 (1915)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Corn v. Blackwell
See, also, Callison v. Peeples, 102 S. C., 256, 86 S. E., 635 , Ann.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Callison
v.
Peeples
v.
Peeples
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Oct 14, 1915.
Mr. R.H. Welch , for appellants, submits: The decision of the State board of canvassers was final on questions of fact: Civil Code 1912, secs. 641 and 642; 79 S.C. 416 ; 65 S.C. 85 . As to reduction of area of old county: 93 S.C. 217 ; Const., art. VII, sec. 7. Voting place established by
Messrs. Grier, Park Nicholson , for respondents, cite, as to: I. Who are entitled to vote on the formation of a new county? Const., art. VII, secs. 1, 2; 78 S.C. 574 ; 79 S.C. 414 ; 9 S.C. 141 ; 78 S.C. 461 . 2. What part of the electorate deprived of the right to vote would be necessary to render an election void? 78 S.C. 570 ; 79 S.C. 414 ; 84 S.C. 48 ; 76 S.C. 574 ; 86 S.C. 451 ; 97 S.C. 1 ; 1 Bay. 441. 3. Does the statute relative to the formation of new counties — applied to the facts of this case — meet the requirements of the Constitution? Civil Code 1912, sec. 641; 86 S.C. 419 . 4. Can Greenwood county be reduced below the five hundred square mile constitutional limit? 93 S.C. 217 .
MR. JUSTICE HYDRICK..
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 258 October 14, 1915. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The opinion of the Circuit Court satisfactorily disposes of all the questions properly before this Court and necessary to the decision.
Judgment affirmed.