Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Vidrine v. Eldred, 96 So. 566.

34 citing documents.

Adkins v. Huckabay 755 So. 2d 206 La. 2000
Leray v. Mullican 456 So. 2d 1038 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Fontenot v. Lee 348 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
LaCaze v. Johnson 310 So. 2d 86 La. 1974
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
Hood v. Democratic Executive Committee 234 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Angelle v. Angelle 204 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Cusimano v. O'Niell 192 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Johnson v. Sewerage District No. 2 of Parish of Caddo 120 So. 2d 262 La. 1960
769 (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); , 96 So.
Dowling v. Orleans Parish Democratic Committee 102 So. 2d 755 La. 1958
Lewis v. Democratic Executive Committee 95 So. 2d 292 La. 1957
Burg v. Folse, supra; , 96 So.
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
State ex rel. Harris v. Breit-Haupt 58 So. 2d 332 La. 1952
Courtney v. Abels 17 So. 2d 337 La. 1944
State v. Folse 16 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
Beard v. Henry 199 So. 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
The view thus expressed was specifically upheld by the Supreme Court, , 96 So.
Dumestre v. Fisher 195 So. 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Bell v. Guenard 195 So. 504 La. 1940
Landry v. Ozenne 195 So. 14 La. 1940
Hebert v. Landry 193 So. 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
Kelly v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 168 So. 96 La. 1936
Crooks v. Chevallier 156 So. 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Dumestre v. Vincent 144 So. 508 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1932
*512 779, , in passing upon tlie question of tlie inconsistency of this’Rind of pleading, the Supreme Court said: “Plaintiff claims that the primary election for the Democratic nominee for mayor of Oakdale was a nullity, and, in the alternative, that he would be the nominee had the votes been properly counted.
Bradley v. Neill 141 So. 382 La. 1932
McCann v. Mayor and Councilmen of Morgan City 139 So. 481 La. 1932
Jacobs v. Cutrer 136 So. 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
783 , ; Hendry v. Democratic Executive Committee, 128 La.
Nolan v. Martin 8 La. App. 202 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1928
784 , , the Court rejected 31 ballots and said: “Some of these votes (ballots) were signed by the voter.
State Ex Rel. Nunez v. St. Bernard Parish Democratic Executive Committee 115 So. 901 La. 1928
Womack v. Nettles 99 So. 290 La. 1924
Bradford v. Grant Parish School Board 97 So. 430 La. 1923
n accord with the general rule, supported by abundant authority, * * * that, where the electors have had a fair and free opportunity to express their will at the polls, arid have done so, the result of their choice will not be set aside because of the failure of some ministerial officer to perform some duty imposed upon him by law, or in the manner prescribed for his guidance.” , 96 South.