Snyder v. Glusing

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Snyder v. Glusing

515 A.2d 767, 307 Md. 548, 1986 Md. LEXIS 308

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedOctober 8, 1986

Docket104, September Term, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 515 A.2d 767 (Snyder v. Glusing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Snyder v. Glusing, 515 A.2d 767, 307 Md. 548, 1986 Md. LEXIS 308 (Md. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This contested election case, growing out of the September 9, 1986, primary elections, involves the nomination by *550 the Republican Party of a candidate for State Senator from the Eighth Legislative District. Appellant filed a petition to void that election pursuant to Md.Code (1957, 1983 Repl. Vol., 1985 Cum.Supp.), Art. 33, §§ 19-1 through 19-5. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County, acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-519, granted motions for judgment made by the appellees at the close of the evidence offered by the appellant and dismissed the petition. Appeal is directly to this Court under § 19—4(3)(i).

On the record before us we conclude that the appellant presented at least a prima facie case that the appellees had violated Art. 33, § 26-16(a)(7) by causing a sample ballot to be distributed which did not clearly indicate the name of the candidate or committee responsible for the literature. We further conclude that the circuit court applied an incorrect standard in evaluating the appellant’s proof in that the circuit court concluded that the above-described violation had not “affected the outcome of the election,” whereas under Art. 33, § 19-5(1) the standard is whether the court can find, “based upon clear and convincing evidence, that the act or omission involved materially affected the rights of interested parties or the purity of the. election process and [mjight have changed the outcome of an election already held[.]” (Emphasis added.) Finally, we conclude that the appellant’s proof, including the permissible inferences therefrom most favorable to the appellant, was legally sufficient to permit a fact finder to determine that the violation might have changed the outcome of the election.

Mandate to issue forthwith.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE APPELLEES.

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

PER CURIAM:

This contested election case, growing out of the September 9, 1986, primary elections, involves the nomination by *550 the Republican Party of a candidate for State Senator from the Eighth Legislative District. Appellant filed a petition to void that election pursuant to Md.Code (1957, 1983 Repl. Vol., 1985 Cum.Supp.), Art. 33, §§ 19-1 through 19-5. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County, acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-519, granted motions for judgment made by the appellees at the close of the evidence offered by the appellant and dismissed the petition. Appeal is directly to this Court under § 19—4(3)(i).

On the record before us we conclude that the appellant presented at least a prima facie case that the appellees had violated Art. 33, § 26-16(a)(7) by causing a sample ballot to be distributed which did not clearly indicate the name of the candidate or committee responsible for the literature. We further conclude that the circuit court applied an incorrect standard in evaluating the appellant’s proof in that the circuit court concluded that the above-described violation had not “affected the outcome of the election,” whereas under Art. 33, § 19-5(1) the standard is whether the court can find, “based upon clear and convincing evidence, that the act or omission involved materially affected the rights of interested parties or the purity of the. election process and [mjight have changed the outcome of an election already held[.]” (Emphasis added.) Finally, we conclude that the appellant’s proof, including the permissible inferences therefrom most favorable to the appellant, was legally sufficient to permit a fact finder to determine that the violation might have changed the outcome of the election.

Mandate to issue forthwith.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE APPELLEES.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 A.2d 767, 307 Md. 548, 1986 Md. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snyder-v-glusing-md-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack