Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialappellee

appealtrial

Related Cases

Peek v. Harvey, 599 S.W.2d 674

Facts

The case arose from an election contest filed by Richard C. Harvey, Claude Martin, and R. T. Geary, challenging the validity of a local option election held on April 7, 1979, in Annona, Texas. The intervenors, Barry J. Peek and Bobby L. Brem, claimed a financial interest in the election's outcome and sought to dismiss the contest, arguing it was a collateral attack on an earlier annexation. The trial court found that 19 votes were cast by non-residents of Annona, which led to the conclusion that the election results were tainted and a new election was necessary.

The trial court was thus justified in concluding that “of the total votes cast there were 19 votes cast by persons who were not residents of the city of Annona, Red River County, Texas.”

Issue

Whether the trial court correctly determined that the election contest was valid and whether the intervenors had standing to challenge the election results.

The significant dispute in this case can be narrowed to whether this was purely an election contest, or whether the action was one collaterally attacking a voidable annexation or a proceeding to show that the annexation was void.

Rule

An election contest is valid when it challenges the validity of a local option election or the correct ascertainment of its results, as established in McBeath v. Mathews. Additionally, material findings of fact not challenged on appeal are binding.

It is a well established rule in Texas that material findings of fact not challenged on appeal are binding on the parties and must be accepted by the Court of Civil Appeals.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by affirming that the trial court's findings regarding the illegal votes were unchallenged and thus binding. The evidence presented showed that the 19 illegal votes were cast by individuals who were not residents of Annona, which constituted a significant irregularity. The court concluded that the election results could not be accurately determined due to this irregularity, justifying the trial court's order for a new election.

The trial court correctly followed s 251.55 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code because the election contest was filed within thirty days after the result of the election was declared by the commissioner's court and the evidence substantiated the court's finding that such irregularities existed in holding the election that the true result of the election was impossible to determine or that the result was so doubtful as to make the election void and thus ordered a new election to be held.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, declaring the local option election void and ordering a new election to be held.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Who won?

The appellees (contestants) prevailed in the case because the court upheld the trial court's findings that illegal votes affected the election's validity.

The court reiterated that this case was simply an election contest and not one to declare an attempted annexation void.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Sanders v. Sullivan, 863 F.2d 218, 57 USLW 2363

Nero v. District of Columbia, 936 A.2d 310

Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509

Scarpelli v. United States, 469 U.S. 1106, 105 S.Ct. 779 (Mem), 83 L.Ed.2d 774

Tyler v. United States, 343 U.S. 908, 72 S.Ct. 639 (Mem), 96 L.Ed. 1326