# Findley v. State Election Board of Oklahoma

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · June 2, 1958 · 325 P.2d 1037

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9789802

## Case

- **Full name:** Max FINDLEY, Petitioner, v. the STATE ELECTION BOARD OF the State of OKLAHOMA, George D. Key, Chairman, Leo Winters, Secretary, and Stanley Neiswander, Member, Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** June 2, 1958
- **Citations:** 325 P.2d 1037; 1958 OK 137; 1958 Okla. LEXIS 409
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Davison
- **Judges:** Halley, Corn, Johnson, Blackbird, Jackson, Carlile, Davison, Welch, Williams
- **Cited by:** 5 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/9789802

## Opinion text

DAVISON, Justice
(concurring in result).
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. I am of the opinion, however, that the case of Meyer v. Jones, District Judge, 203 Okl. 160 , 219 P.2d 620 , should be overruled in so far as it conflicts with the opinion herein. I think the first section of the syllabus in that case is too broad and that the opinion reached an erroneous result. I call attention to my dissenting opinion in that case and again adopt the language in that dissenting opinion as though it was fully set out herein.
The stipulated facts in the Meyer case, supra, were: Petitioner, Meyer, had for several years been a bona fide resident of Nowata County and was registered to vote *1042 therein. He was a graduate of the University of Tulsa Law School and, his application to take the forthcoming June bar examination had been accepted and approved and he had intended to take the bar examination at that time. He expected to pass in that examination and receive his license to practice law soon after the examination. That throughout his law studies in Tulsa University, he had maintained a “B” average. That ninety-five per cent of the graduates of Tulsa University passed the bar examinations. That had Meyer passed the June bar examination he would have been eligible to hold the office of County Attorney had he been elected in the November election. In that case it was conceded that Meyer was in every way qualified to hold the office with the exception that he was not eligible to hold said office in May, the date he filed as a candidate for such office. There was a reasonable probability that Meyer would have been eligible to hold that office on the day of and after the November election.
In my opinion the rule of law in a case having the factual situation as presented in the Meyer case, and under the facts in the present case, under 26 O.S.1941, sec. 162, should be that a candidate who is a qualified elector may file as a candidate for an office if there is a reasonable probability that he will be eligible to hold the office after the election; that is, at the commencement of the term of office.
I respectfully concur in the result reached by the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9789802. Public record. Not legal advice.