Anderson v. Auping

Missouri Court of Appeals

Anderson v. Auping

967 S.W.2d 81, 1996 WL 941745

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 12, 1996

DocketNo. 73281

StatusPublished

This text of 967 S.W.2d 81 (Anderson v. Auping) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Auping, 967 S.W.2d 81, 1996 WL 941745 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Anderson (Plaintiff) appeals from the judgment sustaining the motion to dismiss his election contest petition against Vicki Lynn Auping (Defendant). Plaintiff was the loser in a three-way election contest for two vacant seats on the Board of Trustees of the Village of New Melle; Defendant was one of the two successful candidates in that race. The sole question presented here is whether a trial court has jurisdiction to proceed in an election contest action where there was more than one successful candidate and the petitioner has failed to name as parties all successful candidates. As the court below correctly concluded, the answer to that question is “no”. Arnold v. Hoester, 682 S.W.2d 90 (Mo.App. E.D.1984). Any further discussion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Anderson (Plaintiff) appeals from the judgment sustaining the motion to dismiss his election contest petition against Vicki Lynn Auping (Defendant). Plaintiff was the loser in a three-way election contest for two vacant seats on the Board of Trustees of the Village of New Melle; Defendant was one of the two successful candidates in that race. The sole question presented here is whether a trial court has jurisdiction to proceed in an election contest action where there was more than one successful candidate and the petitioner has failed to name as parties all successful candidates. As the court below correctly concluded, the answer to that question is “no”. Arnold v. Hoester, 682 S.W.2d 90 (Mo.App. E.D.1984). Any further discussion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

967 S.W.2d 81, 1996 WL 941745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-auping-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack