Todd v. Smith

4 Citing cases

  1. Mauldin v. Branch

    2002 CA 146 (Miss. 2004)   Cited 8 times

    642 So.2d 1336. McMillin also cited Todd v. Smith, 331 So.2d 920 (Miss. 1976), which held that since the proper remedy of petitioning the county executive committee within 20 days after the election had not been sought, the chancery court had no jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief. Finally, the Court cited Goodman v. Rhodes, 375 So.2d 991, 993 (Miss. 1979), which cited Barnes ( 1932) and Brumfield ( 1932) as its only authority to hold that chancery courts do not have jurisdiction to determine the candidates whose names should appear or not appear on a ballot.

  2. City of Grenada v. Harrelson

    725 So. 2d 770 (Miss. 1998)   Cited 3 times

    Howard v. Sheldon, 151 Miss. 284, 294, 117 So. 839, 839 (1928); Goodman v. Rhodes, 375 So.2d 991, 993 (Miss. 1979); See also Barnes v. McLeod, 165 Miss. 437, 140 So. 740 (1932); Brumfield v. Brock, 169 Miss. 784, 142 So. 745 (1932); Barnes v. Barnett, 241 Miss. 206, 129 So.2d 638 (1961); Todd v. Smith, 331 So.2d 920 (Miss. 1976). Moreover, the action taken by the Hinds County Chancery Court in enjoining the judicial primaries constitutes a change in voting standards, practices and procedures also subject to § 5 preclearance or approval.

  3. In re McMillin

    642 So. 2d 1336 (Miss. 1994)   Cited 10 times

    Howard v. Sheldon, 151 Miss. 284, 294, 117 So. 839, 839 (1928); Goodman v. Rhodes, 375 So.2d 991, 993 (Miss. 1979). See also Barnes v. McLeod, 165 Miss. 437, 140 So. 740 (1932); Brumfield v. Brock, 169 Miss. 784, 142 So. 745 (1932); Barnes v. Barnett, 241 Miss. 206, 129 So.2d 638 (1961); Todd v. Smith, 331 So.2d 920 (Miss. 1976). Moreover, the action taken by the Hinds County Chancery Court in enjoining the judicial primaries constitutes a change in voting standards, practices and procedures also subject to § 5 preclearance or approval.

  4. O'Neal v. Simpson

    350 So. 2d 998 (Miss. 1977)   Cited 19 times
    In O'Neal, supra, we held that, where part of a statute is valid and another part invalid, the presumption arises that the legislature intended to enact the valid part if it is separate and distinct from the invalid part and is not dependent on the invalid part.

    The State of Mississippi has neither sought a reconsideration from the United States Attorney General nor sought a declaratory judgment from the District Court of the District of Columbia. In two recent cases, Todd v. Smith, 331 So.2d 920 (Miss. 1976) and Jones v. Moorman, 327 So.2d 298 (Miss. 1976), we held that the attempted repeal of a statute was not effective under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unless approved by the Attorney General or unless a declaratory judgment was obtained as provided in the Act.