Bradburn v. Wasco County
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Lane Education Service District v. Swanson (Or. Ct. App. 1984)
- State ex rel. Poddar v. Lee (Or. Ct. App. 2004)
- Bagley v. BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 48 (Or. Ct. App. 1973)
- Pullen v. School District No. 3 (Or. 1920)
- Tazwell v. Davis (Or. 1913)
- Jonathan Shell, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture v. Andy Beshear, in His Official Capacity as Governor (Ky. Ct. App. 2024)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The local option law of this State (Laws 1905, p. 41, c. 2) contains no specific provision for the contest of the result'of a vote taken upon the proposition therein author
1. The determination of election contests is a judicial function only, so far as authorized by statute. 17 Cyc. 394; Taxpayers v. O’Kelly, 49 La. Ann. 1039 (22 South. 311) ; State v. Judge, 13 La. Ann. 89.
2. A statutory mode of contesting elections is in every sense a special proceeding and subject to the well-settled rule that the tribunal exercising jurisdiction does not proceed according to the course of the common law, but must resort to the statute alone to ascertain its powers and mode of procedure. Dorsey v. Barry, 24 Cal. 449; Linegar v. Rittenhouse, 94 Ill. 208; Dickey v. Reed, 78 Ill. 261; Batman v. Begowan, 1 Metc. (Ky.) 533; Garrard v. Gallagher, 11 Nev. 382.
3. The power of the court to entertain and determine election contests under the section of the general election law here relied upon (Section 2839, B. & C. Comp.), is confined by the terms thereof to cases where the contest
The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.