Court Opinion

ID: 9825680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:55:20.226083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:16.389621
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddiN, Justice (concurring). The majority holds that the case at bar is ruled by Moses v. Gingles; and I agree with that conclusion. I dissented in Moses v. Gingles, and would continue to dissent in this case if any useful purpose could be served by so doing. But, when the majority of the court announces a deliberate decision, such becomes stare decisis, and a further dissent serves no useful purpose. This point is clearly stated in 15 C. J. 938: “Nevertheless a deliberate decision of the highest court of a state, although pronounced by a divided court, must be considered as stare decisis upon the questions involved; . . . ” To the same effect, see 21 C. J. S., Courts, § 189, p. 307. So I concur in the present case, and indicate the reason therefor.