TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

WESTERMANN v. NELSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA

Arthur P. Westermann v. Gary K. Nelson, Attorney General of the State of Arizona No. A-412

Westermann v. Nelson, Attorney Gen. of Ariz., 409 U.S. 1236 (1972)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
October 20, 1972
Docket
No. A-412
Judges
Douglas
Citations
409 U.S. 123693 S. Ct. 25234 L. Ed. 2d 2071972 U.S. LEXIS 1021

Opinion — Douglas

Mr. Justice Douglas, Circuit Justice.

Petitioners are candidates of the American Independent Party who complain of their inability to get on the ballot in Arizona for the November 7, 1972, election.

They brought suit in the District Court but their complaint was dismissed. They desire to appeal to the Court of Appeals but were denied a preliminary injunction by a judge of that court. They now apply to me as Circuit Justice.

The complaint may have merit. But the time element is now short and the ponderous Arizona election machinery is already under way, printing the ballots. Absentee ballots have indeed already been sent out and some have been returned. The costs of reprinting all the ballots will be substantial and it may well be that no decision on the merits can be reached by the Court of Appeals in time to reprint the ballots excluding petitioners, should they lose on the merits.

I have been unable to hear oral argument and have only the papers of the parties before me.

On the basis of these papers I have concluded that in fairness to the parties I must deny the injunction, not because the cause lacks merit but because orderly elec *1237 tion processes would likely be disrupted by so late an action. The time element has plagued many of these election cases; but one in my position cannot give relief in a responsible way when the application is as tardy as this one.

So I deny the injunction.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1981: 12000: 12010: 12012: 12014: 12016: 22020: 119812026peak 2016 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ralph Nader v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of State230 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 2000)
  2. Rick Perry v. Charles Judd471 F. App'x 219 (4th Cir. 2012)
  3. State ex rel. Owens v. Brunner2010 Ohio 1374, 926 N.E.2d 617
  4. De La Fuente v. South Carolina Democratic Party164 F. Supp. 3d 794 (D.S.C. 2016)
  5. Ruthelle Frank v. Scott Walker769 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2014) · Dissent
  6. Willie Wilson v. Delbert Hosemann185 So. 3d 370 (Miss. 2016)

Most recent

  1. Dhillon v. WobensmithNo. 1:20-cv-02197 (D. Maryland July 31, 2020)
  2. Willie Wilson v. Delbert Hosemann185 So. 3d 370 (Miss. 2016)
  3. De La Fuente v. South Carolina Democratic Party164 F. Supp. 3d 794 (D.S.C. 2016)
  4. Ruthelle Frank v. Scott Walker769 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2014) · Dissent
  5. Rick Perry v. Charles Judd471 F. App'x 219 (4th Cir. 2012)
  6. State ex rel. Owens v. Brunner2010 Ohio 1374, 926 N.E.2d 617

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list