What is an annulment / contest / recount?

Useful Rulings on Election Laws – Annulment / Contest / Recount

Rulings on Election Laws – Annulment / Contest / Recount

1-25 of 151 results

LYNN BOONE VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGISTRATR RECORDER

That provision, also contained in Chapter 9 of Division 15 of the Elections Code, entitled “Recount” provides as follows: “This chapter [“Recount,” Chapter 9 of Division 15] does not: … (b) Limit other provisions of law regarding an election contest or recount.” Thus, by its express terms, the Election Code provisions allowing a voter to request a recount do not limit other provisions concerning election contests.

  • Hearing

JIMMY NGUYEN V. SYLVIA ARENAS

It appears from the preliminary allegation cited above and Contestant’s opposition to the instant motion that he perhaps intended for this lawsuit to reach beyond the confines of a mere election contest. But the Contest is specifically identified and styled as an election contest pursuant to Elections Code section 16100 and 16400. In ruling on an election contest, a court is primarily concerned with determining the validity of a particular election. (See Friends of Sierra Madre v.

  • Hearing

RAJI RAB VS. ALEX PADILLA SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate ordering Respondents to set aside the results of the primary election (at least as to the candidates for the 30th Congressional District) and to conduct a manual recount of the votes. He also asks the Court to prohibit the printing of ballots for the November 2020 general election until the recount is performed.

  • Hearing

RAJI RAB VS. ALEX PADILLA SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate ordering Respondents to set aside the results of the primary election (at least as to the candidates for the 30* Congressional District) and to conduct a manual recount of the votes. He also asks the Court to prohibit the printing of ballots for the November 2020 general election until the recount is performed.

  • Hearing

ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT CALIFORNIA, INC. V. ORTH ET AL.

These elections materials are to remain unopened unless an election contest or criminal prosecution is commenced within the 22-month period. (Elec. Code, § 17301, subdivision (c)). Additionally, Elections Code section 15370 provides, “After ballots are counted and sealed, the elections official may not open any ballots nor permit any ballots to be opened except as permitted in Sections 15303 and 15304, or in the event of a recount.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CITIZENS OVERSIGHT INC VS. MICHAEL VU

In addition, Section 15370 provides that '[a]fter ballots are counted and sealed, the elections official may not open any ballots nor permit any ballots to be opened except as permitted in Sections 153032 and 153043, or in the event of a recount." To require the ballots to be turned over pursuant to a records request would "permit the ballots to be opened" and thus violate the state's election law.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MICHAEL D. ROBBINS VS DEAN C. LOGAN, ET AL.

PETITION FOR ELECTION CONTEST (Elections Code § 16100) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Michael D. Robbins’s Petition for Election Contest is CONTINUED to DEC. 5, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 94. I. Discussion & Order On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff Michael D. Robbins filed a Complaint for Election Contest (the “Complaint”) under Election Code § 16100 against Defendants Dean C. Logan, a registrar-recorder/county clerk, and Mary C. Wickham, county counsel.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SALVADOR FRAUSTO SR. ET AL. VS MELINDA DUBROFF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY REGISTRAR ET AL.

The proceeding to contest an election is statutory, and consequently, the bases for contest specified in the statutory provisions governing elections control. (Cummings v. Stanley (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 493, 501 (stating, the bases for a postelection challenge, to contest an election, are exclusive.) Courts have applied these provisions to candidates as well as ballot measure elections and to special as well as general elections. (Friends of Sierra Madre v.

  • Hearing

VOSBURG ET AL. V. COUNTY OF FRESNO

Explanation: Detainee-Americans for Civic Equality (“DACE”) moves for attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 for its participation in this election contest.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LOPEZ, ET AL VS. TRINITY ALPS PRESERVE

And with respect to the election contest, contrary to what I indicated in the tentative, I am considering that at this hearing, but I am denying the election contest, so Mr.

  • Hearing

LOPEZ, ET AL VS. TRINITY ALPS PRESERVE

And with respect to the election contest, contrary to what I indicated in the tentative, I am considering that at this hearing, but I am denying the election contest, so Mr.

  • Hearing

SEGOVIA VS. CANCIAMILLA

The McKinney Court wrote: The bases for a postelection challenge, i.e., an “election contest,” are enumerated in Section 16100. And, as our Supreme Court pointed out in Friends of Sierra Madre v.

  • Hearing

RAJI RAB VS. ALEX PADILLA SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

On April 8, 2020, Pefitioner filed an 84-page petition for writ of mandate raising numerous challenges to the election, and on June 5, 2020, he filed an amended petition (this one 30* Congressional District) and to conduct a manual recount of the votes. He also asks the Court to prohibit the printing of ballots for the November 2020 general election until the recount is performed.^ The basis ofthe petition is less than crystal clear.

  • Hearing

RAJI RAB VS. ALEX PADILLA SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

He also asks the Court to prohibit the printing of ballots for the November 2020 general election until the recount is performed. 2 The basis of the petition is less than crystal clear. Petitioner alleges Respondents are guilty of, variously: election fraud; racketeering; tampering with voting machines and ballots; fake voter tallies; “a dark unethical history of corruption;” an “unchecked extravaganza of corruption, fraud and deceit;” and “mafia style” activities. (See, e.g., Amend.

  • Hearing

DANUTA PLATA ET AL VS GRIFFTH PARK TOWNHOUSES OWNERS ASSOCIA

., (3) negligent failure to maintain common areas, (4) breach of contract, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, (6) annulment of special election and request for reinstatement, and (7) violation of Civil Code sections 5310 and 5660. The matter is set for a Final Status Conference on October 12 and Jury Trial October 17, 2017. On June 23, 2017, Plata’s counsel, Susan Barilich, now files this unopposed motion to be relieved as counsel. Analysis: The motion satisfies the procedural requirements.

  • Hearing

ROBERTSON VS VU

Defendants' demurrer to the complaint for election contest is sustained with leave to amend. Defendants' request for judicial notice is granted. The Court exercises its discretion and will consider Contestants' late-filed opposition. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d). The bases for a post-election challenge, i.e., an "election contest," are enumerated in Elections Code § 16100. McKinney v. Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 951, 954. These grounds are exclusive. Friends of Sierra Madre v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ERIK SENKO VS HOA ELECTIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

Code § 7616(a), Plaintiff also asks the Court, in his Complaint and this Motion for Hearing, for injunctive relief, namely to order Defendant to recount of the votes or hold a new election. (Compl. ¶¶ 37-43; Motion for Hearing p. 2.) “An injunction is defined as ‘a writ or order requiring a person to refrain from a particular act.’ [Citation.] Injunctions also may command a person to perform a particular act. [Citation.]” (PV Little Italy, LLC v.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MABURY RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. PETERSON

Hearing on (1) “Motion to Contest the Election of 2016 of the Mabury Ranch Homeowner’s Association Board of Directors”; (2) “Motion to Contest the Election of 2017 of the Mabury Ranch Homeowner’s Board of Directors”; (3) “Motion to Compel Allowing Viewing of Records in Accordance with CCC §5200, and Corp §8311, §8330, §8333, and §8335”; (4) “Motion to Rescind Increase in HOA Dues Since 2011 for Non-Compliance with CCC §5605”; (5) “Motion to Revoke Immunity of Mabury Ranch HOA Board Members for Failure to Follow

  • Hearing

RE MATTER OF THE LANG FAMILY TRUST

Contest and Objection filed by Wycliffe Chan 5-19-16. C. Contest and Grounds of Opposition filed by Alice Wong Boote 8-31-16. ALICE WONG BOOTE JANICE Z WONG KATHERINE CUTHBERT KONSTANTINE A DEMIRIS WYCLIFFE CHAN NORMAN R REITZ

  • Hearing

PALO CAPITAL, INC. V. CANNIVET

For example:  Where recount of votes confirmed petitioner as winner of election, writ proceeding to challenge opponent’s declaration triggering recount was deemed moot, and no injunction was to be issued. Campbell v. Superior Court (1932) 126 Cal.App. 652, 654.  Where corporation responsible for providing background information on applicants voluntarily ceased reporting “possibilities” after trial court found that doing so required additional diligence, injunction was properly denied. Cisneros v.

  • Hearing

ROBERT WOOTEN VS. EDMUND G BROWN JR INDIVIDUALLY AND IN OFFICIAL CAPACITIES

Code § 16442, and therefore cannot claim that this case qualifies as an election contest for purposes of precedence. The motion is accordingly denied. This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STEVEN PAPPAS VS DOREEN FARR

Discussion: These are discovery motions relating to a motion for attorney fees in an election contest. This action is an election contest arising from the November 2008 election for Third District County Supervisor. Contestant Steven Pappas lost the election by 806 votes. The court, the Honorable William McLafferty, Judge, presiding, concluded that there was no merit in Pappas’s claims of election fraud and found in favor of defendant, now Supervisor, Doreen Farr.

  • Hearing

RE: MTN TO VACATE ORDER OF 3/26/19 ON GROUND OF LACK OF NTC

Contest and Grounds of Opposition filed by Joseph Rodezno 7-9-18. Need Summons issued and served. B. Objections to Contest filed 9-17-18. C. Per 7-23-2020 minute order, court ordered Anju Multani to appear at this hearing. ASHOL BHATIA JOHN E BOESSENECKER JOSEPH A RODEZNO ANJU MULTANI SHANTA S RODEZNO Need: 1. Spouse did not file an election to subject any inheritance to formal administration so therefore court lacks jurisdiction to order distribution to spouse or fees thereon.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

BRANDON VS. SUMMIT RIDGE COMMU

To contest this tentative ruling, please call (510) 942-2110 or email Dept. 10 at [email protected] The Court prefers notice by e-mail.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Campins

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

DURAN V. CITY OF PORTERVILLE

Elections Code §16100 itemizes the process to contest an election. While this present action involves an appointment, §10229 states that “The person appointed, if any, shall qualify and take office and serve exactly as if elected at a municipal election for the office.” Therefore, an election contest is the only procedure available to challenge an appointment.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.