Hindman v. Teague
This text of 481 So. 2d 369 (Hindman v. Teague) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ON REHEARING EX MERO MOTU
This Court’s original opinion dated June 21, 1985, is withdrawn and the following is substituted in its place.
Plaintiff/appellant Dan Hindman sought to have his name placed on the ballot for Superintendent of Education of Franklin County. The state superintendent refused to certify him as a candidate, because, in the state superintendent’s opinion, Hind-man did not meet statutory qualifications. Code 1975, § 16-9-2.
Hindman sought declaratory and injunc-tive relief which would have enabled him to have his name placed on the ballot as a candidate for election to the office of superintendent. The trial judge denied Hind-man’s motion for a temporary restraining order, and Hindman appealed here.
We have determined that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Hindman’s request for injunctive relief; therefore, the cause is due to be affirmed.
ON REHEARING EX MERO MOTU: OPINION WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
481 So. 2d 369, 29 Educ. L. Rep. 1224, 1985 Ala. LEXIS 4267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hindman-v-teague-ala-1985.