# Jacobs v. Yates

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 5, 2000 · 342 Ark. 243

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748369

## Case

- **Full name:** Arlanda JACOBS v. the Honorable Harvey L. YATES, Circuit Judge, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 5, 2000
- **Citations:** 342 Ark. 243; 27 S.W.3d 734; 2000 Ark. LEXIS 453
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Glaze
- **Judges:** Ray Thornton
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748369

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that: "Certainly, they possess standing, as a result of their ministerial obligations under statute, to request a judicial determination whether a candidate was qualified to stand for the office in question"
- holding pre-election challenge to candidate’s eligibility was cognizable through petition for writ of mandamus even though statute established a comprehensive procedure for challenging qualifications following the election

## Opinion text

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. The lack-of-standing issue raised by Jacobs in this case is easily resolved by recognizing that the Phillips County Board of Election Commissioners and the Phillips County Democratic Committee had the standing to request the relief they requested, namely, for the trial court to declare the parties’ rights and direct the county election commissioners and county Democratic Committee members as to how they should proceed with respect to their election duties. For example, the Phillips County Election Commissioners are necessary parties in this litigation because they had the responsibility to provide the election ballots for the primary election and the ballots were to contain the names of the qualified and eligible candidates. Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-207 (Repl. 2000); see also Ark. Code Ann. §§ 7-5-208 , 7-5-211, and 7-5-407 (Repl. 2000). Obviously, the Phillips County Board of Election Commissioners was a necessary party so that complete relief could be afforded in this action which was brought seeking compliance with § 7-5-207. See State v. Craighead County Bd. of Election Commr’s, 300 Ark. 405 , 779 S.W.2d 169 (1989); Ark. R. Civ. P. 19 (2000).
Because I agree with the majority opinion that the Phillips County Board of Election Commissioners (and the Phillips County Democratic Committee) have standing in this action, I see no need for the court to address whether Doris Tyler had standing. For that reason, I concur with the majority on the standing issue.
Brown and Smith, JJ., dissenting.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748369. Public record. Not legal advice.