Legal Opinion

McKinney v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 7, 2004No. G034762PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SILLS, P. J.

I. Introduction

California statutory law enumerates seven specific grounds by which the results of an election can be contested (see Elec. Code, § 16100 1 ) so that, under certain circumstances, the election can be set aside and a new election held. 2 California case law holds that these seven grounds are the exclusive statutory grounds for postelection challenges. 3 Although election results can be challenged under section 16100 on the ground that the winner is ineligible, the statute does not contemplate challenges based on the fact that one of the runners-up is ineligible.

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Domar Electric, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Edelstein v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra MadreCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Canaan v. AbdelnourCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Gooch v. HendrixCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Owens v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  2. Cummings v. StanleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  3. County of Alameda v. Alameda County Taxpayers' Assn., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2024
  4. County of Alameda v. Alameda County Taxpayers' Assn., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2024
  5. Denny v. ArntzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020

6 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