Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Andrews v. Blackman, 59 So. 769.

23 citing documents.

Allen v. Gleason 293 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Garrison v. Connick 291 So. 2d 778 La. 1974
Champagne v. Ackal 256 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Johnson v. Sewerage District No. 2 of Parish of Caddo 120 So. 2d 262 La. 1960
81 (polling place not opened on time, majority of commissioners absenting themselves at different times, election ballots and poll lists left by election officials in unauthorized hands, voters influenced by hope of favor, others by threats, returns not timely filed); however the election was invalidated for failure to open the registration office as required by City Charter; , 59 So.
Smith v. Washington Parish Democratic Committee 120 So. 2d 257 La. 1960
335 ( ); Heine v. Jefferson Davis Parish Police Jury ( 172 La.
Dowling v. Orleans Parish Democratic Committee 102 So. 2d 755 La. 1958
Duncan v. Vernon Parish School Board 76 So. 2d 403 La. 1954
Jarreau v. David 74 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Daigle v. Mayor of Rayne 62 So. 2d 833 La. 1953
Felder v. Police Jury of Livingston Parish 21 So. 2d 724 La. 1945
Beard v. Henry 199 So. 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Dumestre v. Fisher 195 So. 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
[355], 359, .” Plere, however, there is no prayer for the annulment of the election as a whole, but only for the elimination of the vote cast in certain precincts.
Landry v. Ozenne 195 So. 14 La. 1940
335 [ ]; Heine v. Police Jury [ 172 La.
Livaudais v. Leovy 193 So. 613 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1940
Lafargue v. Galloway 167 So. 197 La. 1936
Dumestre v. Vincent 144 So. 508 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1932
359 , .” Prom the foregoing decisions it is plain that, if the plaintiff, Dumestre, has alleged sufficient facts, he may join the two demands, and it is immaterial which of the two prayers of relief is sought in the alternative.
McCann v. Mayor and Councilmen of Morgan City 139 So. 481 La. 1932
State Ex Rel. Nunez v. St. Bernard Parish Democratic Executive Committee 115 So. 901 La. 1928
It is further alleged that, in his application for mandamus, Nunez did not claim the nomination that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, and therefore properly dismissed the same under section 27, Act 97 of 1922, , 59 So.
Womack v. Nettles 99 So. 290 La. 1924
Bradford v. Grant Parish School Board 97 So. 430 La. 1923
y election such as the failure of election officers to sign or forward a particular document in a particular manner, or * * * provide * * * a booth of particular dimensions, particularly situated, or constructed of particular material, but not preventing a free and honest expression of the will of the voters, will not affect the validity of a nomination made at the election.” , 59 South.
Vidrine v. Eldred 96 So. 566 La. 1923
Reid v. Brunot 96 So. 43 La. 1923
Koepp v. Crawford 70 So. 858 La. 1916

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by