Davis v. Oaks, 1006

Decision Date20 March 1974
Docket NumberNo. 1006,1006
Citation507 S.W.2d 328
PartiesC. R. DAVIS, Appellant, v. Steven C. OAKS et al., Appellees. (14th Dist.)
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

John G. Gilleland, Houston, for appellant .

David A. Gibson, Engel, Groom, Miglicco & Gibson, Joe Resweber, County Atty.Edward J. Landry, Michael R. Davis, Houston, for appellees.

Steve Oaks, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

This is an attempted appeal by C. R. Davis from a judgment of a district court of Harris County denying what he calls his petition for writ of mandamus.

The appellant, Davis, was elected in 1972 to the office of Constable, PrecinctNo. 4, Harris County, Texas.The term to which he was elected began January 1, 1973, and was to continue through December 31, 1976.On June 28, 1973, the Harris County Commissioners Court redistricted the constable precincts of Harris County.The New PrecinctNo. 4 consisted of all of old Precincts 4, 5, and 7 and parts of 3 and 6.There were three persons, including Davis, residing in the new Precinct 4 who had been Constable of an area included therein.The Commissioners Court of Harris County, effective July 1, 1973, appointed Davis as Constable of the new Precinct 4.This action was pursuant to Tex.Rev. Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 2351 1/2 (1971).

Both Davis and Larry Eddings have filed as candidates for the Democratic nomination for the office of Constable of Precinct 4 in the primary election to be held on May 4, 1974.No one filed as candidate for such nomination in the Republican party.Steven Oaks, Chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee, has certified to the County Clerk a list of candidates, which list includes both Davis and Eddings as candidates for the office of Constable, Precinct 4, Harris County.

Davis filed suit in the district court against Oaks, Eddings, and R. E. Turrentine, Jr., County Clerk of Harris County.He prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus 'ordering and commanding the Defendants to remove the office of Constable, PrecinctNo. 4 of Harris County, Texas, from the ballot during the Democratic Primaries set for May 4, 1974.'After a hearing in which the facts were stipulated, the trial judge on March 11, 1974, denied the relief sought by Davis.Davis appealed to this Court, and the parties agreed that the appeal be preferentially set for March 19, 1974.

It is the appellant's position that he was, in 1972, elected to a four-year term as Constable of Precinct 4 and that there is not, and will not be until ...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 cases
  • Blum v. Lanier
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 26 Noviembre 1997
    ...moot if it cannot be "disposed of prior to the time for printing of ballots and the commencement of absentee voting."); See also Davis v. Oaks, 507 S.W.2d 328 Civ.App.-Houston 1974, mand. overr.); McGee v. McKaskle, 499 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1973, no writ). 5 Blum con......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT