Legal Opinion
Cummings v. Stanley
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 4, 2009No. A123743PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRAHAM, J. *
Plaintiff brought the present action pursuant to Elections Code sections 16100, subdivision (b), and 16440, subdivision (a), to contest the eligibility of defendants Walter Stanley III, Lea Smart, Casey Fargo, Deslar Patten, Christopher Kuhn, John W. Bartlett, and David Latour, for election to positions on the Alameda County Republican Central Committee (the Committee). The trial court dismissed the action on the ground that plaintiff failed to file the action within the statutory five-day time limit for primary election contests. We conclude that an election of party…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Common Cause v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Coalition of Concerned Communities, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- People v. BlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Wasatch Property Management v. DegrateCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- CHIATELLO v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Bay Guardian Co. v. New Times Media LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Saffer v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2014
- Sacks v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.