Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 118
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 118.280 (2026)

Repealed, 1972

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: Issuance and marking of ballot. History: Repealed 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 188, sec. 69, effective December 1, 1972. -- Amended 1952 Ky. Acts ch. 136, sec. 1, effective June 19, 1952. -- Amended 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 169, secs. 1 and 3. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. secs. 1459, 1460, 1471, 1472.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1945–1962 · leading case: Cox v. Howard, 261 S.W.2d 673 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cox v. Howard, 261 S.W.2d 673 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). · cites it 4× “5 a total of 148 ballots were cast, none of which were signed on the back by the election officers of that precinct before they were cast; that Cox received 88 and Howard 60 of these ballots; that on August 3, after all ballots in the election had been counted, it was discovered…”
Berndt v. Fitzpatrick, 189 S.W.2d 678 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945). · cites it 3× “The court refused to recount “E,” where the Canvassing Board certified that Fitzpatrick received 99 and Berndt 41 votes, on the ground that the ballots were not signed by one of the judges of the election in his handwriting but by stencil, and could not be counted under KRS…”
Hogg v. Howard, 242 S.W.2d 626 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). · cites it 2× “KRS 118.280. The opinion expressly confirms the consistent ruling of the court that, in a’ recount proceeding evidence may not be heard concerning fraud in the election or ineligibility of the voters who may have cast the ballots.”
Sizemore v. Henson, 264 S.W.2d 865 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). · cites it 3× “The trial court apparently took the view that, as required by KRS 118.280, all markings upon the ballot should be with black ink stencil (except when writing in a name), and therefore the mark for Sizemore could not be given effect.”
Stevens v. Coleman, 224 S.W.2d 149 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). · cites it 7× “” It is difficult to determine the effect of the inserted words “in the handwriting,” but, whatever it may be, in view of the wording of section 3 of chapter 169 above quoted, and of the original wording of section 118.”
Stabile v. Osborne, 217 S.W.2d 980 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). “” The petition charges, as we have said, that neither officer signed any ballot.”
Schaffield v. Hebel, 192 S.W.2d 84 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946). “KRS 118.280; Johnson v. Caddell, 250 Ky. 640 , 63 S.”
Steel v. Meek, 226 S.W.2d 542 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “While these ballots were not marked in the manner provided by KRS 118.280(2), that section itself anticipates the type of mistake here made when it declares the ballot shall not be counted “if for any reason it is impossible to determine the voter’s choice for an office to be…”
Harmon v. Wilson, 254 S.W.2d 693 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). · cites it 2× “2d 448 , and many other cases to the same effect, holding that the statutory requirement as to a judge of the election signing the ballot, as directed by KRS 118.280 prior to 1952, was mandatory and that a ballot not so' signed would not be counted.”
Schooler v. Lisle, 299 S.W.2d 792 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957). “See KRS 118.280(2). King v. McMahan, 179 Ky. 536 , 200 S.”
Warren v. Rayburn, 267 S.W.2d 720 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “KRS 118.280 provides that in the conduct of regular elections at the polls one of the officers of election shall sign his name on the back of the ballot and that no ballot not so signed shall be counted.”
Bradley v. Chaffins, 218 S.W.2d 975 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). “KRS 118.280(1) directs the clerk and one of the judges to sign the ballot and provides that no ballot “not so signed in the handwriting by one of the judges shall be counted by the canvassing board.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 118.280(1) — 3 cases
Sizemore v. Henson, 264 S.W.2d 865 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “The trial court apparently took the view that, as required by KRS 118.280, all markings upon the ballot should be with black ink stencil (except when writing in a name), and therefore the mark for Sizemore could not be given effect.”
Bradley v. Chaffins, 218 S.W.2d 975 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). “KRS 118.280(1) directs the clerk and one of the judges to sign the ballot and provides that no ballot “not so signed in the handwriting by one of the judges shall be counted by the canvassing board.”
Dobbins v. City of Louisville, 233 S.W.2d 423 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 118.280(2) — 5 cases
Steel v. Meek, 226 S.W.2d 542 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “While these ballots were not marked in the manner provided by KRS 118.280(2), that section itself anticipates the type of mistake here made when it declares the ballot shall not be counted “if for any reason it is impossible to determine the voter’s choice for an office to be…”
Sizemore v. Henson, 264 S.W.2d 865 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “The trial court apparently took the view that, as required by KRS 118.280, all markings upon the ballot should be with black ink stencil (except when writing in a name), and therefore the mark for Sizemore could not be given effect.”
Schooler v. Lisle, 299 S.W.2d 792 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957). “See KRS 118.280(2). King v. McMahan, 179 Ky. 536 , 200 S.”
Gullett v. Rudd, 299 S.W.2d 611 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957).
Wade v. Durrett, 354 S.W.2d 758 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.