Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dankman v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided October 13, 1981No. 81-977, 81-978Published

1DissentMack, Associate Judge

I

The lead opinion (i.e., the opinion authored by Judge Harris) is significant for what it does not say. Conspicuous by its absence is a discussion of the basic finding by the Board of Elections and Ethics that “the evidence before us indicates such a manipulation of the initiative process in direct violation of statutory direction, that ... the [challenged] signatures ... must be rejected in order to preserve the integrity of the petition process ... [and ensure] that the statutory mandate be followed.” Board of Elections and Ethics Order at 14-15 (emphasis supplied). Conspicuous also by its…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  3. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. CampSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  5. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Federal Maritime CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1968

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API