Burks v. Hinton
Citations
- 77 Va. 1
- 1883 Va. LEXIS 34
Syllabus
<p>1. Constitution—Legislature—Vacancies—Judges.—The constitution of Virginia (art. v., § 22,) authorizes the legislature to prescribe the manner of filling all vacancies in office, and to declare when an office is vacant, in cases not specially therein provided for, and makes no exception as to the office of judge.</p> <p>2. Idem.—This was the construction, contemporaneously, by the convention in striking out the only provision making any such exception, and subsequently, by the legislature in enacting its joint resolutions in 1869 and in 1872, and is in accordance with the principles of the decision of this court in re Broadus, 32 Gratt. 779.</p> <p>3. Idem—Constitutionality.—-The joint resolution of December 18th, 1872, (Acts 1872-3, p. 1,) providing that “all elections by the general assembly to fill vacancies in the office of judge, shall be for the unexpired term of his predecessor,” is constitutional.</p> <p>4. Erroneous.—The decision of this court in re Meredith, 33 Gratt. 119, declaring said joint resolution unconstitutional, is sustained neither by contemporaneous nor legislative construction, nor by the reasoning of the judge who delivered the opinion, and is erroneous.</p> <p>5. Stare Decisis.—The doctrine of stare decisis grows out of the necessity for a uniform and settled rule of property and definite basis for contracts qnd business transactions. If a decision is wrong, it is only when it has been so long the rule of action, that time and its continued application as the rule of right between parties, demand the sanction of its error, that this doctrine applies. It does not apply to questions of the construction of organic law.</p> <p>6. Overruled.—The decision in re Meredith (supra) is not within the rule of stare decisis, and must be overruled.</p> <p>7. Case at Bar.—-In 1876, E. C. B. was elected and commissioned a judge of this court, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Judge B. In 1882 H. was elected and commissioned a judge of this court
Judges: Fauntleroy, Lacy, Lewis, Richardson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Hubbard v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia· 1992-01-10· cited 89×
- Re: The Assessment of Shares of Stock of the Kanawna Valley BankWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1959-04-28· cited 58×
- State ex rel. Shaw v. WareOregon Supreme Court· 1886-04-26· cited 45×
- Oraee v. BreedingSupreme Court of Virginia· 2005-11-04· cited 33×
- Foster v. RobertsTennessee Supreme Court· 1919-12-15· cited 8×
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court· 1819-02-22· cited 668×
- Powell v. MyersNew York Supreme Court· 1841-07-01· cited 36×
- Marshall v. HarwoodCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1853-12-15· cited 22×
- Crowell v. LambertSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1864-07-15· cited 18×
- People ex rel. Attorney General v. BurbankCalifornia Supreme Court· 1859-01-15· cited 17×
- Clark v. PeopleNew York Supreme Court· 1841-07-01· cited 15×
- People ex rel. Brodie v. WellerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1858-07-01· cited 14×
- Sansbury v. MiddletonCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1857-12-15· cited 13×
- ex parte MeredithSupreme Court of Virginia· 1880-04-01· cited 9×
- Brosee v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1854-05-25· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.