Cox v. Peters

8 Citing cases

  1. Britt v. Smith

    274 Ga. 611 (Ga. 2001)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that a violation of the Uniform Superior Court Rules, which, like the Rules of Professional Conduct, are promulgated by this Court, is not in itself cognizable in habeas

    The United States Constitution and the Georgia Constitution of 1983 as "adopted by the people of this State . . . [are] binding on this [C]ourt." Cox v. Peters, 208 Ga. 498, 505 ( 67 S.E.2d 579) (1951). As a criminal defendant, Britt certainly had the constitutional right to due process, which right mandates that the plea he entered be a knowing and voluntary admission of his guilt.

  2. Allen v. Muskett

    221 Ga. 665 (Ga. 1966)   Cited 2 times

    It may also be noted here that running in and receiving the nomination in a primary election is not the equivalent to being elected. Cox v. Peters, 208 Ga. 498 ( 67 S.E.2d 579). For the appellee to be a candidate for the position of alderman in the December general election, it was not necessary that he run in the primary election.

  3. Baker v. Carr

    369 U.S. 186 (1962)   Cited 5,315 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge Tennessee's apportionment of state representatives when that apportionment "effect[ed] a gross disproportion of representation to voting population"

    And Cox v. Peters, 342 U.S. 936, dismissed for want of a substantial federal question the appeal from the state court's holding that their primary elections implicated no "state action." See 208 Ga. 498, 67 S.E.2d 579. But compare Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461.

  4. Nichols v. United States

    223 F. Supp. 709 (N.D. Ga. 1963)   Cited 5 times

    The statement of facts is fully set out in the opinion rendered by this Court on January 17, 1962, and this Court now deems it unnecessary to further elaborate on these facts. The thrust of this motion filed is that this Court in granting judgment dismissing the petitioner's complaint for tax refund of $225.24 followed a ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia, in Cox v. Peters, 208 Ga. 498, 67 S.E.2d 579 (1951), in which the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that a state-wide Democratic Primary election in Georgia was not an integral part of the election machinery of the State of Georgia, and basing its ruling on such case, this Court held that the $750.00 filing fee paid by Judge Nichols was not a state tax and, therefore, not deductible for income tax purposes.

  5. Mann v. Davis

    213 F. Supp. 577 (E.D. Va. 1962)   Cited 21 times

    I do not agree with that portion of the opinion in Toombs v. Fortson which intimates that Baker v. Carr has held that the doctrine of abstention should be ignored in apportionment cases. Likewise in Sanders v. Gray, D.C., 203 F. Supp. 158, a three-judge federal court in Georgia, composed of two of the three judges sitting in Toombs, held that there was no adequate state remedy in view of the holding of the Supreme Court of Georgia in Cox v. Peters (1951) 208 Ga. 498, 67 S.E.2d 579. Unlike Lisco v. McNichols, D.C., 208 F. Supp. 471, where the General Assembly of Colorado had repeatedly refused to apportion in accordance with the Colorado Constitution, Virginia has reapportioned at ten year intervals as required by the bare wording of her Constitution.

  6. Sanders v. Gray

    203 F. Supp. 158 (N.D. Ga. 1962)   Cited 23 times

    Plaintiff asserts, in addition to his Fourteenth Amendment claim, that the System violates the Seventeenth Amendment which provides that the Senators from each state shall be elected by the people thereof. He alleges that he is without adequate remedy at law in view of the holding of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the case of Cox v. Peters, 1951, 208 Ga. 498, 67 S.E.2d 579, appeal dismissed, 342 U.S. 936, 72 S.Ct. 559, 96 L.Ed. 697 (1952), that an action at law for damages will not lie in favor of one aggrieved by reason of the application of the County Unit System. Jurisdiction and three-judge status is based on Title 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1343, 2201-2202, 2281 and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

  7. Nichols v. United States

    201 F. Supp. 337 (N.D. Ga. 1962)   Cited 3 times
    Involving the filing fee of this petitioner for a lower county judgeship in a pre-1964 year

    Counsel for taxpayer contends that only those who qualify with the Democratic Executive Committee under the unique political situation and history in the State of Georgia could be elected to a state-wide office, and that this has been true since the initiation of the state-wide Democratic Primary held in 1898, and that only those candidates qualifying with the State Democratic Executive Committee since the establishment of the Court of Appeals on January 1, 1907, have won the general election for a judgeship on the Court of Appeals. This Court recognizes the history of the success of the nominees of the Democratic Party in Georgia, as well as the testimony of the highly respected officials who testified in substance that the nomination in the Democratic Primary was tantamount to election, but the Supreme Court of Georgia, by a unanimous decision in 1951, in the case of Cox v. Peters, 208 Ga. 498, 67 S.E.2d 579, held otherwise. Under the doctrine laid down by the case of Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, this Court must follow the construction of the state statutes as construed by the Supreme Court of Georgia.

  8. Henderson v. State Democratic Executive Com. of Ga.

    198 F. Supp. 360 (N.D. Ga. 1961)   Cited 2 times

    Conclusions of Law 1. There is no actual controversy appropriate for judicial determination involved in this case under the statutes governing primaries in the State of Georgia. The holding of a state primary in this state is at the option of the Democratic Party or any other political party, Chapman v. King, 5 Cir., 154 F.2d 460, 463; Cox v. Peters, 208 Ga. 498, 504, 67 S.E.2d 579. Until such time as a primary is held by the defendant, an actual controversy would not exist. 2.