Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 119

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 119.170

Repealed, 1972

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: Court may compel compliance with law as to placing names on ballots. History: Repealed 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 188, sec. 69, effective December 1, 1972. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 1550-27.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1949–1973 · leading case: Grantz v. Grauman
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grantz v. Grauman (1957) kyctapphigh · cites it 6× “The suit was brought in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Common Pleas Branch, Fifth Division, under KRS 119.170, which provides that the circuit court may correct any error or omission that has occurred, or is about to occur, in placing or failing to place the name of any candidate…”
Fletcher v. Wilson (1973) kyctapp · cites it 4× “Robinson brought proceedings under Section 27 of the Primary Election Law (subsequently compiled as KRS 119.170) to compel the clerk to put his name on the ballot.”
Department of Revenue ex rel. Allphin v. Turner (1953) kyctapp “The chancellor adjudged the foregoing statute to be unconstitutional and therefore void, but in-junctive relief was denied Turner for the reason that he, as stated in the judgment, has an adequate remedy at law under KRS 119.170. The department has appealed and three questions…”
McConnell v. Marshall (1971) kyctapp “Marshall and Searcy instituted proceedings in the Jefferson Circuit Court under KRS 119.170, against McConnell and against the county clerk and election commissioners of Jefferson County, seeking an order that McConnell’s name not be placed on the voting machines at the primary…”
Bach v. Keith (1959) kyctapp · cites it 3× “The record is not clear as to how many of these grounds were considered by the circuit court.”
Brown v. Read (1949) kyctapphigh · cites it 2× “*■ * * “It is our opinion that the signers to the affidavits accompanying the declarations for office of these candidates possessed all the necessary legal qualifications,” and adjudged that: “The Court having heard proof upon the plaintiff’s motion * * * it is now ordered and…”
Hallahan v. Anderson (1971) kyctapp “Appellee also contends that the provisions of KRS 119.170 require the dismissal of the appeal, since that statute provides a summary procedure by which a candidate may require his name to be placed on the official primary ballot.”
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.