25-1411.
History: G.S. 1868, ch. 36, § 85; R.S. 1923, 25-1411; L. 1968, ch. 406, § 133; Repealed, L. 1978, ch. 138, § 22; July 1.
Source or prior law:
L. 1861, ch. 34, § 11.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Specific irregularities held insufficient to vitiate election. Morris v. Vanlaningham, 11 Kan. 269, 279.
2. Pleadings, issues and range of inquiry considered. Baker v. Long, 17 Kan. 341.
3. Mere furnishing of money for liquors is not sufficient cause. Moonlight v. Bond, 17 Kan. 351.
4. Defects in notice may be cured by amendment. Buckland v. Goit, 23 Kan. 327.
5. Bribed vote not counted; candidate denied office; dicta. The State v. Elting, 29 Kan. 397, 399.
6. Hearsay evidence of illegal voting is incompetent. Tarbox v. Sughrue, 36 Kan. 225, 12 P. 935; Blue v. Peter, 40 Kan. 701, 20 P. 442.
7. A fictitious return and spurious ballots should be rejected. Blue v. Peter, 40 Kan. 701, 20 P. 442.
8. Vote is presumed legal until contrary is shown. Moss v. Patterson, 40 Kan. 720, 20 P. 454.
9. General charge of mistake in counting ballots held sufficient. Lawrence v. Wheeler, 77 Kan. 209, 212, 93 P. 602.
10. Contest determines right to office; quo warranto as alternative remedy. Little v. Davis, 80 Kan. 777, 104 P. 560.
11. Election may be contested for ineligibility of successful candidate. The State, ex rel., v. Irey, 116 Kan. 21, 25, 225 P. 1050.
12. Contester has no absolute right to recount. Free v. Wood, 137 Kan. 939, 942, 946, 948, 22 P.2d 978.
13. Discussion of bribery causing votes to be thrown out. Kluemper v. Zimmer, 240 Ky. 225, 41 S. W. 2d 1111, 1116.
14. On appeal district court must try election contest case de novo. Woodruff v. Bell, 143 Kan. 110, 53 P.2d 498.
15. Inapplicable to contest of election of community high-school trustee. Berglund v. Hanna, 149 Kan. 500, 502, 503, 87 P.2d 581.
16. Evidence of fraud and irregularity held sufficient to warrant recount. Campbell v. Ramsey, 150 Kan. 368, 373, 92 P.2d 819.
17. Contester's contest statement considered and held sufficient; change of result. Johnson v. Russell, 160 Kan. 91, 93, 100, 159 P.2d 480.
18. Contester's contest statement examined and held sufficient. Whitson v. Roberts, 176 Kan. 232, 233, 236, 237, 238, 239, 269 P.2d 1018; Affirmed, 177 Kan. 148, 276 P.2d 324.
19. Section held inapplicable where ballots distributed to precincts in county but outside city of Topeka did not contain names of candidates for marshal of court of Topeka; election void; all legal electors of county entitled to vote. Stawitz v. Nelson, 188 Kan. 430, 434, 362 P.2d 629.
|
|