Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

258 N.C. 60

127 S.E.2d 788

Ratcliff v. Rodman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 31, 1962

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1962-10-31

Relies on Saunders v. Bulla · Nance v. City of Winston-Salem · Efird v. Board of Commissioners

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1962-10-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 2010

8 state decisions

60196219701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Moore, J.

¶1 The question plaintiff seeks to present on this appeal is academic. The sole relief sought by plaintiff is the issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring the Beaufort County Board of Elections “to permit the filing of plaintiff for the nomination of the Republican Party as Representative of Beaufort County in the Lower House of the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina without the necessity of taking” the pledge as provided for in G.S. 163-119. In *62 short, he desires to be a candidate in the Primary Election of 26 May 1962. That Election has been held. Saunders v. Bulla, 232 N.C. 578, 61 S.E. 2d 607; Nance v. Winston-Salem, 229 N.C. 732, 51 S.E. 2d 185; Penland v. Gowan, 229 N.C. 449, 50 S.E. 2d 182; Rousseau v. Bullis, 201 N.C. 12, 158 S.E. 553. Any attempt to grant relief at this juncture would avail him nothing. Should there be a determination on the merits favorable to plaintiff's contention, he could not be certified as the nominee of his Party. Who can say, had he been permitted to file, that one or more persons unfavorable to his candidacy would not also have filed? It is too late for him to become an official nominee of his Party.

¶2 Where the question presented to this Court for decision is academic, the prevailing practice is to dismiss the appeal. Eller v. Wall, 229 N.C. 359, 49 S.E. 2d 758; Efird v. Comrs. for Forsyth, 217 N.C. 691, 9 S.E. 2d 466.

¶3 Appeal dismissed.

Robman, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
/258/nc/60 · .json · Public domain