Opinion

Eugene v. Davenport

  • 2014 La.App. 4 Cir. 0953
  • 150 So. 3d 56
  • 2014 La. App. LEXIS 2156
  • 2014 WL 4437624
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Filed
Sep 9, 2014
Status
Published
Author
Dysart
On the bench
Bagneris, Belsome, Bonin, Dysart, III, Jenkins, Ledet, Lobrano, Lombard, Love, McKay, Tobias
Cited by
8 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.2%

The opinion

DYSART, J.,

concurs, with reasons.

|)I join in the result reached by the majority, but write separately to provide my reason for reaching the same conclusion.

The fundamental prerequisite in a suit to object to the qualifications of a candidate is that the plaintiffis) must be a qualified elector. Here, as found by the trial court, petitioners did not file a verified petition, nor was there testimony, affidavits or any stipulation offered that they were qualified electors. Absent proof petitioners were qualified to vote in the election, they are not qualified to object to the candidacy of an individual running in that *65 election. See Booth v. Jefferson, 34,446 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/6/00), 765 So.2d 1249 .

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.