election doctrine in Louisiana

1993Abdallah v. Abdallah, 359 F.2d 170 (3d Cir.1966).

1981Abdallah v. Abdallah, 359 F.2d 170 (3d Cir. 1966).

1973That section of the Constitution is therefore a mandate that bonds be issued only after they are authorized in an election, which is required by the law as expressed in Liter v. City of Baton Rouge, 258 La. 175 , 245 So.2d 398 (1971).

1973That section of the Constitution is therefore a mandate that bonds be issued only after they are authorized in an election, which is required by the law as expressed in Liter v. City of Baton Rouge, 258 La. 175 , 245 So.2d 398 (1971).

2020Russo v. Burns, 147 So.3d 1111 , involved an election challenge on the ground that the candidate, Mr. Burns, had purportedly falsely certified on his August 20, 2014 Notice of Candidacy that he had filed his tax returns for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.

1996LSA-R.S.18:1432(A) [1] ; Davis v. McGlothin, *1140 524 So.2d 1320 (La.App. 3 Cir.1988), writ denied 525 So.2d 1046 (La.1988); Dumas v. Jetson, 446 So.2d 744 (La.App. 1 Cir.1983).

1996LSA-R.S.18:1432(A) [1] ; Davis v. McGlothin, *1140 524 So.2d 1320 (La.App. 3 Cir.1988), writ denied 525 So.2d 1046 (La.1988); Dumas v. Jetson, 446 So.2d 744 (La.App. 1 Cir.1983).

1996LSA-R.S.18:1432(A) [1] ; Davis v. McGlothin, *1140 524 So.2d 1320 (La.App. 3 Cir.1988), writ denied 525 So.2d 1046 (La.1988); Dumas v. Jetson, 446 So.2d 744 (La.App. 1 Cir.1983).

1982This court in Fontenot v. Lee, 359 So.2d 1071 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1978) held: As to subparagraph (3), our statutory law provides the procedure for attacking the improper registration of voters prior to the election and provides for challenge at the polls by a commissioner or any other person who may contend a voter is not properly registered.

1958Co., 167 La. 474 , 119 So. 432 , where the court cited Corpus Juris to the effect that an election having been made, it became binding on the plaintiff and it did not matter that the conflicting remedies pursued were against different persons or that the plaintiff had dismissed the first suit.” Under the doctrine of election and waiver, if Cipriano, at the outset of this litigation, had elected to sue in contract, he would thereby have waived his right to later sue in tort; and conversely, if he had brought his original suit in tort, he would thereby have waived his right to subsequently sue i

1958Co., 167 La. 474 , 119 So. 432 , where the court cited Corpus Juris to the effect that an election having been made, it became binding on the plaintiff and it did not matter that the conflicting remedies pursued were against different persons or that the plaintiff had dismissed the first suit.” Under the doctrine of election and waiver, if Cipriano, at the outset of this litigation, had elected to sue in contract, he would thereby have waived his right to later sue in tort; and conversely, if he had brought his original suit in tort, he would thereby have waived his right to subsequently sue i

1940Section 27 of Act No. 97 of 1922, as amended by Section 1 of Act No. 110 of 1934; Section 4 of Act No. 8 of 1934 (2d Ex.Sess.) and Section 1 of Act No. 28 of 1935 (2d Ex.Sess.) Reid v. Brunot, 153 La. 490 , 96 So. 43 .

1940Section 27 of Act No. 97 of 1922, as amended by Section 1 of Act No. 110 of 1934; Section 4 of Act No. 8 of 1934 (2d Ex.Sess.) and Section 1 of Act No. 28 of 1935 (2d Ex.Sess.) Reid v. Brunot, 153 La. 490 , 96 So. 43 .

1925Landry, residing within the district and owning property therein (and also 48 taxpayers, not electors) brought this suit to annul the election under the doctrine laid down in Milton v. Lincoln Parish School Board, 152 La. 761 , 94 So. 386 , that: “Where there was only one voting precinct in a school district embracing territory lying in two parishes, and voters from one parish went to the precinct in the other parish and voted at a bond election, their votes were improperly counted.” And also under the doctrine laid down in Whatley v. La Salle Parish School Board, 155 La. 797 , 99 So. 603 , th

1925Landry, residing within the district and owning property therein (and also 48 taxpayers, not electors) brought this suit to annul the election under the doctrine laid down in Milton v. Lincoln Parish School Board, 152 La. 761 , 94 So. 386 , that: “Where there was only one voting precinct in a school district embracing territory lying in two parishes, and voters from one parish went to the precinct in the other parish and voted at a bond election, their votes were improperly counted.” And also under the doctrine laid down in Whatley v. La Salle Parish School Board, 155 La. 797 , 99 So. 603 , th

1925Landry, residing within the district and owning property therein (and also 48 taxpayers, not electors) brought this suit to annul the election under the doctrine laid down in Milton v. Lincoln Parish School Board, 152 La. 761 , 94 So. 386 , that: “Where there was only one voting precinct in a school district embracing territory lying in two parishes, and voters from one parish went to the precinct in the other parish and voted at a bond election, their votes were improperly counted.” And also under the doctrine laid down in Whatley v. La Salle Parish School Board, 155 La. 797 , 99 So. 603 , th

1925Landry, residing within the district and owning property therein (and also 48 taxpayers, not electors) brought this suit to annul the election under the doctrine laid down in Milton v. Lincoln Parish School Board, 152 La. 761 , 94 So. 386 , that: “Where there was only one voting precinct in a school district embracing territory lying in two parishes, and voters from one parish went to the precinct in the other parish and voted at a bond election, their votes were improperly counted.” And also under the doctrine laid down in Whatley v. La Salle Parish School Board, 155 La. 797 , 99 So. 603 , th