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
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- merely numbering the instructions requested but not given is insufficient to preserve the question for appeal
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fauntleroy, Lacy, Lewis, Richardson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.