DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Perez v. Cognevich, 100 So. 444.

35 citing documents.

  • Brunet v. Evangeline Parish Board of Supervisors of Elections 379 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
  • Fontenot v. Lee 359 So. 2d 1071 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Staton v. Hutchinson 370 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    EXCEPTION OF NO CAUSE OF ACTION Defendant's exception of no cause of action is based on the proposition that a petition in an election contest which alleges no irregularities other than non-residence of voters fails to state a cause of action, , 100 So.
  • 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
  • State ex rel. Langridge v. Harris 138 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
  • Smith v. Washington Parish Democratic Committee 120 So. 2d 257 La. 1960
  • Gouaux v. Guidry 57 So. 2d 894 La. 1952
    That court, however, refused to consider the case, holding that, since the emoluments of the office of member of the House of Representatives exceeded $2,000, appellate jurisdiction was vested in this court, , 100 So.
  • Guillory v. Evangeline Parish Democratic Executive Committee 57 So. 2d 758 La. 1952
  • State ex rel. Harris v. Breit-Haupt 58 So. 2d 332 La. 1952
  • Gouaux v. Guidry 57 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
  • Grace v. Boggs 55 So. 2d 768 La. 1951
  • Carter v. Richland Parish Police Jury 50 So. 2d 293 La. 1951
  • Langlois v. Lancaster 47 So. 2d 795 La. 1950
  • McCall v. Regan 36 So. 2d 830 La. 1948
  • Courtney v. Abels 17 So. 2d 824 La. 1944
    These have been declared to be spoiled ballots under our jurisprudence as well ( , 100 So.
  • State v. Delery 3 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    This contention is based on the proposition of law that a collateral attack cannot be made on registration, , 100 So.
  • Bell v. Guenard 195 So. 504 La. 1940
    These are marked ballots and should have been rejected.” , 100 So.
  • Landry v. Ozenne 195 So. 14 La. 1940
    909 ], the Court held, quoting from the syllabus: ‘In a contest of a primary election, the pleading of the contestant should allege not only the number of illegal votes cast, but should allege by whom they were cast, and the reason, as applied to each voter, that his ballot was not legal.’ '“ [ 100 So.
  • Treadaway v. Plaquemines Parish Democratic Committee 193 So. 609 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1940
    The averment doés not constitute a valid ground of complaint for three reasons — (1) .because the contestant is without authority to attack collaterally the right of registered persons to vote — (he had the remedy of purging the registration rolls before the election)— , 100 So.
  • Hebert v. Landry 193 So. 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
  • State Ex Rel. Moss v. Willis 184 So. 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
  • Hunt v. Sims 167 So. 188 La. 1936
  • Crooks v. Chevallier 156 So. 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
  • McConnell v. Salmon 141 So. 73 La. 1932
  • Bradley v. Neill 141 So. 382 La. 1932
  • Cambre v. Brignac 140 So. 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
    But whether the plea of prescription be good or not, it appears to us that, since the vote of Ordineaux has been cast and counted, and since the right of Ordineaux to cast the said vote was never questioned prior to nor at the election, it cannot be questioned now, , 100 So.
  • Jacobs v. Cutrer 136 So. 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
  • Doughty v. Allen 128 So. 514 La. 1930
  • Owens v. Woods 8 La. App. 194 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1928
    331 , ; and by that of this Court in the recent case of Nolan vs. Martin, decided on March —, not yet reported.
  • Owens v. Woods 8 La. App. 250 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1928
    In passing on the legality of the seventy-three (73) disputed ballots, we have been guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Perez vs. Cognevich, , 100 So.
  • Davis v. Hill 8 La. App. 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1928
    Perez vs. Cognevitch, , 100 South.
  • Carter v. Martin 8 La. App. 8 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1928
    “This matter was settled in the case of Perez vs. Cognevich, , and Turregana vs. Whittington, 132 La.
  • Nolan v. Martin 8 La. App. 202 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1928
    Some of them contained other marks than the cross mark in the square opposite the names of candidates, as for instance, the names of candidates written, or additional cross marks or checks or lines outside of the square; some contained visible erasures.” In Perz vs. Cognevich, , 100 So.
  • Thibodeaux v. Fortner 1 La. App. 323 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1924
    871 ; Perez vs. Cognovitch, , 100 South.