Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
9Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
SCOAL 2013-04-24 McInnish|Goode v Chapman APPEAL - Chapman Brief

SCOAL 2013-04-24 McInnish|Goode v Chapman APPEAL - Chapman Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,141 |Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
SCOAL 2013-04-24 McInniss Goode v Chapman APPEAL - Chapman Brief
SCOAL 2013-04-24 McInniss Goode v Chapman APPEAL - Chapman Brief

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Jack Ryan on Apr 25, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/14/2013

pdf

text

original

 
E-Filed
04/23/2013
@
02:57:33
PM
Honorable Robert
Esdale
Clerk Of The Court
 No. 1120465
IN
THE
SUPREME
COURT
OF
ALABAMA 
HUGH
MCINNISH,
et
al.
 V.
BETH
CHAPMAN,
Secretary
of
State
Brief
of
Appellee Beth
Chapman
Luther Strange
(STR003)
 Attorney 
General
 Andrew L.
Brasher
(BRA143)
Deputy 
Solicitor 
General
James W.
Davis
{DAV103)
Laura
E.
Howell
(HOW084)
 Assistant
Attorneys
General
STATE OF
ALABAMA 
OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
501
Washington
Avenue Montgomery,
AL 
36130
(334)
242-7300
 Attorneys
for the
Appellee
/
Defendant
 April
23, 2013
ORAL
ARGUMENT
NOT
REQUESTED
 
STATEMENT
REGARDING ORAL
ARGUMENT
This matter
concerns
a
single
straightforward questionof statutory
interpretation.
In
light
of her
argument
that
intervening
events
have
rendered
a
ruling
on the
question
moot,
the
Secretary
of
State
does
not
think that
oral
argument
is
necessary,
but
welcomes
the
opportunity
to
present
argument if
this
Court disagrees.
 
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL
ARGUMENT
i
TABLE
OF CONTENTS iiSTATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION
iv
TABLE
OF
AUTHORITIES
vSTATEMENT OF THE
CASE
1STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUES
2STATEMENT OF THE
FACTS
2STANDARD OF REVIEW 3
SUMMARY
OF THE
ARGUMENT
4
ARGUMENT
5
I. Plaintiffs'
claims
are
moot
because
the
election
has
already taken place
5
II.
Plaintiffs'
claims
do not
fall
under
an
"exception
to
mootness."
6
III.
Even
were
they
not
moot,
Plaintiffs'
claims
would
still
fail
9A. The
Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction
over
the
claimspursuant
to
Ala.
Code
§
17-16-44
9B. The
Secretary
has no
legal
duty
to
investigate
or
verify
the
credentials
of
candidates
prior
to
placing
them
on the
ballot
10C.
Only
Congress
has the
authority
to
judge
the
qualifications
of
Presidential
candidates
after 
an
election
has
been
held
13
ii

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Brendon Guiznot liked this
raicha98 liked this
Danny Miller liked this
Deborah Khora liked this
Karen Diaczyk liked this
Carl McNealy liked this
magicmulder liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->