DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lewis v. Democratic Executive Committee, 95 So. 2d 292.

23 citing documents.

  • Savage v. Edwards 722 So. 2d 1004 La. 1998
  • Savage v. Edwards 728 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    62 , (1958); Garrison v. Connick, supra ; , (1957).
  • Valence v. Rosiere 675 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • Scoggins v. Jones 442 So. 2d 1203 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    For this Court to render such a drastic order, there must be a clear showing that a course of fraudulent conduct was employed which effectually prevented the electors from expressing their will.’ , (1957).
  • Huckaby v. Hunter 427 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Veuleman v. O'CON 417 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Kelly v. Village of Greenwood 363 So. 2d 887 La. 1978
    62 , (1958); , (1957); Felder v. Police Jury of Livingston Parish, 207 La.
  • Fontenot v. Lee 348 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    ( , ; Vidrine v. Eldred, 153 La.
  • Moreau v. Tonry 339 So. 2d 3 La. 1976
  • McGee v. Lee 328 So. 2d 159 La. 1976
  • Distinguished LaCaze v. Johnson 310 So. 2d 86 La. 1974
    1039 , (1955); , (1957).
  • Allen v. Gleason 293 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    it has been recognized that if the Court finds the proven frauds and irregularities are of such a serious nature as to deprive the voters of the free expression of their will, it will decree the nullity of the entire election- — -even though the contestant might not be able to prove that he would have been nominated but for such fraud and irregularities ( , ; Vidrine v. Eldred, 153 La.
  • Garrison v. Connick 291 So. 2d 778 La. 1974
    tive, it has been recognized that if the Court finds the proven frauds and irregularities are of such a serious nature as to deprive the voters of the free expression of their will, it will decree the nullity of the entire election—even though the contestant might not be able to prove that he would have been nominated but for such fraud and irregularities ( , ; Vidrine v. Eldred, 153 La.
  • Garrison v. Connick 288 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
  • Gremillion v. Rinaudo 240 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    Landry v. Ozenne, supra.
  • Folse v. Lafourche Democratic Committee 160 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    In Love vs. Cross, cited supra, at page 619, this language in italics: “ ‘And it is the only method provided by the statute for contesting the legality of the ballots.’ “In the case of Lewis vs. Democratic Executive Committee [ ], , the plaintiff claimed that 228 persons were permitted to vote at a precinct although they were not residents of that precinct and not qualified to vote.
  • Love v. Cross 158 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Further, for the court to render such a drastic order as to annul an election, “there must be a clear showing that a course of fraudulent conduct was employed which effectually prevented the electors from expressing their will”, , 95 So.
  • Constantin v. McNeely 141 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Timberlake v. Lindsey 140 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    and cases therein cited; Hart v. Picou, 147 La.
  • Downs v. Pharis 124 So. 2d 553 La. 1960
    18:1071-1081) and decreed, as to the alternative demand, that plaintiff was not entitled to a recount, in view of the deci *586 , 95 So.
  • Downs v. Pharis 122 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    *867 Counsel for defendant, F. Jean Pharis, takes the position that under the decisions of the appellate courts of this State in the cases of Lewis v. Democratic Executive Committee of Eunice, Louisiana, et al., , ; Landry v. Ozenne et al., 194 La.
  • Smith v. Washington Parish Democratic Committee 120 So. 2d 257 La. 1960
    379 , (and the long list of cases cited therein); , ; Jarreau v. David, La.App., .
  • Dowling v. Orleans Parish Democratic Committee 102 So. 2d 755 La. 1958
    tive, it has been recognized that if the Court finds the proven frauds and irregularities are of such a serious nature as to deprive the voters of the free expression of their will, it will decree the nullity of the entire election—even though the contestant might not be able to prove that he would have been nominated but for such fraud and irregularities ( , ; Vidrine v. Eldred, 153 La.