State, ex Rel. Halpin v. Bd. of Elections

1 Citing case

  1. Mundo v. Commonwealth Superior Court

    4 N. Mar. I. 392 (N. Mar. I. 1996)   Cited 2 times

    [10] In such jurisdictions, parties may still seek discretionary review of election contests by petitioning for an extraordinary writ, but the scope of review is sharply limited. See Hiett, supra (limiting writ review of election contest results to instances where decision below was induced by bad faith or was the result of "arbitrary acts showing wrongful conduct amounting to fraud, corruption or oppression"); Kreidler, 766 P.2d at 443 (restricting review of trial court's orders on ballot title challenges to instances of "wilful and unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard of facts or circumstances"); State ex rel. Halpin v. Hamilton County Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio App. 403, 126 N.E.2d 145, 146 (Mass. 1952), rev'd on other grounds, 161 Ohio St. 281, 118 N.E.2d 840 (confining review of election contest decisions to instances where board "flagrantly misinterpreted the statute, or clearly disregarded an applicable legal provision"). We find these authorities persuasive and hold that writ review of election contests is limited to instances of flagrant misinterpretations of binding law, arbitrary and capricious findings of fact, or wrongful conduct.