From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stephens v. Conley

Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Jun 27, 1969
454 S.W.2d 675 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969)

Summary

In Stephens v. Conley, 48 Mont. 352, 366, 138 P. 189, 192, this court had occasion to construe the good time and forfeiture statutes.

Summary of this case from Hill v. State

Opinion

June 27, 1969.

Henry Stephens, pro se.

Hollie Conley, pro se.


Henry Stephens has filed an original action in this court to prohibit Hollie Conley, Judge, Floyd Circuit Court, from acting in an election contest action styled "Judge Henry Stephens v. Frank DeRossett." Stephens and DeRossett were rival candidates for the Democratic nomination for Circuit Court Clerk of Floyd County at the May 27, 1969 primary election. In the contest action Stephens challenges DeRossett's right to the nomination. DeRossett is the incumbent clerk.

The contest action was filed June 11, 1969. On June 13, 1969, Stephens filed a motion for the respondent to vacate the bench supported by an affidavit in which it is charged that the respondent was also a candidate for the Democratic and Republican nominations for circuit judge in the same primary election. It was also charged that Conley is a cousin of petitioner's and that DeRossett is Conley's incumbent circuit court clerk.

For the reasons stated in Hunt v. Eagle, Ky., 454 S.W.2d 673 (decided June 27, 1969), prohibition is denied. The dictum in Roberts v. Sturgill, 257 Ky. 194, 77 S.W.2d 789, is not controlling.

Prohibition denied.

All concur.


Summaries of

Stephens v. Conley

Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Jun 27, 1969
454 S.W.2d 675 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969)

In Stephens v. Conley, 48 Mont. 352, 366, 138 P. 189, 192, this court had occasion to construe the good time and forfeiture statutes.

Summary of this case from Hill v. State

In Stephens v. Conley, 48 Mont. 352, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 958, 138 P. 189, 193, this court declared that a complaint for malicious prosecution must set forth, and the plaintiff must prove: "(a) That a judicial proceeding was commenced and prosecuted against him; (b) that the defendant was responsible for instigating, prosecuting, or continuing such proceeding; (c) that there was a want of probable cause for defendant's act or acts; (d) that he was actuated by malice; (e) that the proceeding terminated favorably to plaintiff; and (f) that plaintiff suffered damage, with the amount thereof."

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Horn
Case details for

Stephens v. Conley

Case Details

Full title:Henry STEPHENS, Petitioner, v. Hollie CONLEY, Presiding Judge of the Floyd…

Court:Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Date published: Jun 27, 1969

Citations

454 S.W.2d 675 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969)

Citing Cases

Odell v. Holloway

In this case no such statement as required by the above stated rule was ever given the county attorney.…

In re Petition of Herman Pelke

In support of such contention petitioner cites section 80-739, R.C.M. 1947, since repealed but applicable to…