Brown v. State ex Rel. Stack

5 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. Grzeskowiak

    230 Ind. 110 (Ind. 1951)   Cited 39 times
    In Brown v. Grzeskowiak, 230 Ind. 110, 101 N.E.2d 639 (1951), the Supreme Court of Indiana agreed that absentee voting laws are generally strictly construed.

    We are, however, here concerned with the legality of absent voters' ballots. This court in Brown v. State ex rel. Stack (1949), 227 Ind. 183, 84 N.E.2d 883, at p. 190 said: "Absentee voting is an exception to the general rule and is in the nature of a special right or privilege which enables the absentee voter to exercise his right to vote in a manner not enjoyed by voters generally."

  2. State ex Rel. McCormick v. Sup. Ct. of Knox Co.

    229 Ind. 118 (Ind. 1951)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that "[a]s between the rival candidates, the title to the office may be adjudicated by the statutory contest, or by the concurrent remedy of quo warranto."

    As between the rival candidates, the title to the office may be adjudicated by the statutory contest, or by the concurrent remedy of quo warranto. State ex rel. Watson v. Pigg (1943), 221 Ind. 23, 46 N.E.2d 232, supra; Brown v. State ex rel. Stack (1949), 227 Ind. 183, 84 N.E.2d 883. By invoking the provisions of the article for recount, any candidate is afforded the protection of § 29-5413, Burns' 1949 Replacement, which requires the court by order to impound and protect all ballots and voting machines, the tally sheets and the list of names and addresses of all persons registered by the clerk as having voted.

  3. Bell v. Gannaway

    303 Minn. 346 (Minn. 1975)   Cited 18 times
    Concluding that absentee voters "must be held to a strict compliance" with all substantial requirements of absentee voter statutes

    The requirement of an absentee ballot oath represents an obvious attempt to insure, in a clear and forceful manner, that only properly qualified voters will exercise the privilege of absentee voting. Accord, Desjourdy v. Board of Registrars of Voters of Uxbridge, 358 Mass. 664, 266 N.E.2d 672 (1971); Bullington v. Grabow, 88 Colo. 561, 298 P. 1059 (1931); State ex rel. Hutchins v. Tucker, 106 Fla. 905, 143 So. 754 (1932); Brown v. State ex rel. Stack, 227 Ind. 183, 84 N.E.2d 883 (1949); Miller v. Hutchinson, 150 Me. 279, 110 A.2d 577 (1954); Owens v. Chaplin, 228 N.C. 705, 47 S.E.2d 12, rehearing (sought on grounds not pertinent here) denied, 229 N.C. 797, 48 S.E.2d 37 (1948); Straughan v. Meyers, 268 Mo. 580, 187 S.W. 1159 (1916); Kaufmann v. La Crosse City Board of Canvassers, 8 Wis.2d 182, 98 N.W.2d 422 (1959); Fugate v. Mayor and City Council of Town of Buffalo (Wyo.) 348 P.2d 76, 97 A.L.R. 2d 243 (1959). See, generally, Annotation, 97 A.L.R. 2d 243.

  4. Fugate v. Mayor and City Council of Town of Buffalo

    348 P.2d 76 (Wyo. 1960)   Cited 24 times
    In Fugate v. Mayor and City Council of Buffalo, 348 P.2d 76 (Wyo. 1959), twelve absentee ballot affidavit forms were attested to by an election official not in the presence of the affiants.

    '" In the case of Brown v. State ex rel. Stack, 227 Ind. 183, 84 N.E.2d 883, 886, the court said: "The trial court found that two absent voters' ballots in the 14th precinct, which were the only absent voters' ballots cast therein, should both be counted.

  5. Miles v. Eltzroth

    170 Ind. App. 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 4 times

    This rationale would be equally applicable to Miles' second assignment of error. In addition, in the case of Brown v. State ex rel. Stack (1949), 227 Ind. 183, 84 N.E.2d 883, [3] at page 192, it is stated: "Any voter who wished to avail himself of the right to vote by absent voter's ballot waived some of the provisions of secrecy available to him if he voted in person at the polls." We do not wish to be understood as holding that the statutory procedures for the attainment and voting of absentee ballots may be disregarded with impunity.