115.553. Candidate may challenge returns — registered voter of area may contest result. — 1. Any candidate for election to any office may challenge the correctness of the returns for the office, charging that irregularities occurred in the election.
2. The result of any election on any question may be contested by one or more registered voters from the area in which the election was held. The petitioning voter or voters shall be considered the contestant and the officer or election authority responsible for issuing the statement setting forth the result of the election shall be considered the contestee. In any such contest, the proponents and opponents of the ballot question shall have the right to engage counsel to represent and act for them in all matters involved in and pertaining to the contest.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case:
Foster v. Evert, 751 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. 1988).
Foster v. Evert, 751 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. 1988).
· cites it 5× “Subsection 1 of § 115.553, RSMo 1986, provides that “[a]ny candidate for election to any office may challenge the correctness of the returns for the office, charging that irregularities occurred in the election.”
Beatty v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 700 S.W.2d 831 (Mo. 1985).
· cites it 3× “577 provides in pertinent part: Not later than thirty days after the official announcement of the election result by the election authority, any person authorized by section 115.553 who wishes to contest the election .”
Miller v. Frank, 519 S.W.3d 472 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “Louis County Clerk had yet to certify the results of the Election, the thirty-day period for contesting elections under Sections 115.553 and 115.577 has not yet run.”
Bd. of Election Commissioners v. Knipp, 784 S.W.2d 797 (Mo. 1990).
· cites it 3× “In addition to the recount issue raised by the election authority, the action’s scope was significantly broadened by the candidates, who were unequivocally entitled to challenge the correctness of the returns under § 115.553, which in pertinent part states: [A]ny candidate for…”
Landwersiek v. Dunivan, 147 S.W.3d 141 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “We note that both Appellant and Respondents initiated the underlying lawsuits pursuant to section 115.553, which states in pertinent part: 1.”
State ex rel. Bushmeyer v. Cahill, 575 S.W.2d 229 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “They brought the action pursuant to §§ 115.553(2), 115.577 and 115.549, and alleged that the failure of the Board of Election Commissioners to count their votes and its subsequent refusal to allow them to vote at the polls denied them their constitutional right to vote, relying…”
Clark v. City of Trenton, 591 S.W.2d 257 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “577, supra, provides in part that “[n]ot later than thirty days after the official announcement of the election result by the election authority, any person authorized by section 115.553 who wishes to contest the election .”
Royster v. Rizzo, 326 S.W.3d 104 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Section 115.553 provides that “[a]ny candidate for election to any office may challenge the correctness of the returns for the office, charging that irregularities occurred in the election.”
Clay Chastain & Vincent Lee v. Sylvester James, 463 S.W.3d 811 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
“597 (addressing the right of appeal "[i]n all cases of contested elections,” but which is nonetheless limited to election contests described in sections 115.553 to 115.583). 8 . Mayor James and Sanders counter that the repeal of section 115.”
City of Lexington v. Seaton, 819 S.W.2d 753 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Section 115.553 states that the "result of any election on any question may be contested,” while a candidate for office may contest the "correctness of the returns.”
Reeves v. Bockman, 101 S.W.3d 280 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
“577 provides that a person authorized under § 115.553 or § 115.575 may contest the results of an election “[n]ot later than thirty days after the official announcement of the election result by the election authority.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.553(2): 1 case
State ex rel. Bushmeyer v. Cahill, 575 S.W.2d 229 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
“They brought the action pursuant to §§ 115.553(2), 115.577 and 115.549, and alleged that the failure of the Board of Election Commissioners to count their votes and its subsequent refusal to allow them to vote at the polls denied them their constitutional right to vote, relying…”
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.