election challenge in Pennsylvania

2024If unconfirmed rumors of potential issues learned within the statutory period are sufficient to support the filing of an election challenge, id., then the public announcement by the Board of its decisions to delay certification, thereby not 17 certifying Marino as winner, and to recanvass the disputed mail-in ballots on a date certain, and the completion of that canvass, are likewise sufficient, particularly where Section 1756 authorizes the amendment of an election contest petition, albeit by leave of court. 25 P.S. § 3456.

2012In this election challenge the Commonwealth Court applied Section 2911(d) of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2911(d), and ordered the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) to strike the name of Carl Stevenson (Stevenson) from the ballot notwithstanding that the Secretary had been enjoined from enforcing Section 2911(d) by a permanent injunction in Morrill v. Weaver, 224 F.Supp.2d 882 (E.D.Pa.2002).

2012In this election challenge the Commonwealth Court applied Section 2911(d) of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2911(d), and ordered the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) to strike the name of Carl Stevenson (Stevenson) from the ballot notwithstanding that the Secretary had been enjoined from enforcing Section 2911(d) by a permanent injunction in Morrill v. Weaver, 224 F.Supp.2d 882 (E.D.Pa. 2002).

2007Citing to this Court’s decision in In re Creighton, 899 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Cmwlth.), aff'd per curiam, 586 Pa. 652 , 896 A.2d 583 (2006), Candidate points out that during the primary election challenge period, this Court ignored the strict language of Nader and Flaherty in allowing incumbent legislators to remain on the ballot.

2007Citing to this Court’s decision in In re Creighton, 899 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Cmwlth.), aff'd per curiam, 586 Pa. 652 , 896 A.2d 583 (2006), Candidate points out that during the primary election challenge period, this Court ignored the strict language of Nader and Flaherty in allowing incumbent legislators to remain on the ballot.

2007Citing to this Court’s decision in In re Creighton, 899 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Cmwlth.), aff'd per curiam, 586 Pa. 652 , 896 A.2d 583 (2006), Candidate points out that during the primary election challenge period, this Court ignored the strict language of Nader and Flaherty in allowing incumbent legislators to remain on the ballot.

2004Our Supreme Court addressed the issue of final appealable orders in Chalkey v. Roush, 569 Pa. 462 , 805 A.2d 491 (2002).

2004Our Supreme Court addressed the issue of final appealable orders in Chalkey v. Roush, 569 Pa. 462 , 805 A.2d 491 (2002).

1953When the court came to write its opinion it correctly determined that she was an incompetent witness, citing Robinson’s Estate, 222 Pa. 113, 115, 116 , 70 A. 966 , and Inskipt’s Estate, 324 Pa. 406, 410 , 188 A. 127 , and stated that it “must now disregard that inadmissible evidence from this incompetent witness.” This the court did, and after disregarding this testimony, there was nothing to impeach the agreement, and the court dismissed the widow’s election and her claim for family exemption.

1953When the court came to write its opinion it correctly determined that she was an incompetent witness, citing Robinson’s Estate, 222 Pa. 113, 115, 116 , 70 A. 966 , and Inskipt’s Estate, 324 Pa. 406, 410 , 188 A. 127 , and stated that it “must now disregard that inadmissible evidence from this incompetent witness.” This the court did, and after disregarding this testimony, there was nothing to impeach the agreement, and the court dismissed the widow’s election and her claim for family exemption.

1948This we believe would be an unwarranted extension of the doctrine of election, and Callery’s Estate, supra, as to lapsed legacies has no application.

1940Bowman’s Case, 225 Pa. 364 , in which respondent Owen places chief reliance, deals only with removal for nonresidence while in office. ' Commonwealth v. Shaver, 3 W. & S. 338 , decided that an election violation by a candidate is not a misbehavior in office.

1940Bowman’s Case, 225 Pa. 364 , in which respondent Owen places chief reliance, deals only with removal for nonresidence while in office. ' Commonwealth v. Shaver, 3 W. & S. 338 , decided that an election violation by a candidate is not a misbehavior in office.

1892A failure to do so may, as against third parties, be construed as an election not to claim the property: Citing Amory v. Lawrence, supra, and Smith v. Gordon, 6 Law Rep. 313 .

1875This reasoning derives strength also from the- doctrine of election, recognised in Coxe v. Blanden, 1 Watts 533 , in which it was held that ,a treasurer’s sale of a part of a tract of land, by quantity, and not by locality, is good, and confers an unrestricted choice of locality.