Friberg v. Scurry

3 Citing cases

  1. Dick v. Kazen

    156 Tex. 122 (Tex. 1956)   Cited 21 times
    Determining that the Legislature did not intend to alter a statute's meaning when it replaced "all candidates for each nomination" with "all candidates for all offices"

    In the case of Wright v. Peurifoy, Tex.Civ.App. 1953, 260 S.W.2d 234, it was held that the court reporter and the district clerk were not necessary parties in a mandamus proceeding to compel the district judge to sustain an affidavit of inability to pay costs of appeal, and set aside his order sustaining a contest to such affidavit. See also Friberg v. Scurry, Tex.Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d 762, dism. w. o. j. 119 Tex. 463, 32 S.W.2d 637. While we have been unable to find a case that is exactly in point on the facts we have before us, we think a part of the reasoning in the cases cited on the question of necessary parties to this mandamus action is applicable here.

  2. Nixon v. Condon

    286 U.S. 73 (1932)   Cited 211 times
    Concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the conduct of political parties using delegated government authority to conduct state primaries

    Moreover, there is no reason why a legislative "recognition," even of an existing inherent power, should not turn the inherent power into a statutory one. Clancy v. Clough, 30 S.W.2d 569; Love v. Taylor, 8 S.W.2d 795; Friberg v. Scurry, 33 S.W.2d 762. The Texas cases, with one exception, all confirm our contention that the party executive committees are agencies of the State, subject to legislative control and endowed with powers by the Legislature.

  3. Painter v. Shaner

    667 S.W.2d 356 (Tex. App. 1984)   Cited 1 times

    A writ of mandamus lies to compel party officials to accept a proper application of the candidate and to place his name on the ballot. Baker v. Porter, 160 Tex. 488, 333 S.W.2d 594 (1960); Ferris v. Carlson, 158 Tex. 546, 314 S.W.2d 577 (1958); Cantrell v. Carlson, 158 Tex. 528, 314 S.W.2d 286 (1958); McClain v. Betts, 95 S.W.2d 1311 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont 1936, no writ); Friberg v. Scurry, 33 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1930, dism'd w.o.j.); Clancy v. Clough, 30 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.Civ.App. — Galveston, 1928, no writ); Yapor v. McConnell, 597 S.W.2d 555 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1980, no writ); Parker v. Brown, 425 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1968, no writ); Ramsey v. Marlowe, 376 S.W.2d 438 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1964, no writ); Ferguson v. Marlowe, 376 S.W.2d 360 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1964, no writ); Roy v. Drake, 292 S.W.2d 848 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1956, no writ). No court in Texas has ever held that the right of a citizen to be a candidate can be denied by the official responsible for taking the application absenting himself or by the committee responsible not providing someone to accept applications.