TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Price v. Dawson

John Wiley PRICE, Appellant, v. Jesse DAWSON Et Al., Appellees

Price v. Dawson, 608 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. App. 1980)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 11, 1980
Docket
No. 20662
Judges
Carver, Storey, Hum-Phreys
Citations
608 S.W.2d 3391980 Tex. App. LEXIS 4103

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an election contest. We do not reach the merits of the *340 case and dismiss the appeal because the issue is now moot. John Wiley Price ran for Constable, Precinct 8, Dallas County, Texas, in the Democratic Party primary in the spring of 1980, against a field of opponents. On June 7, 1980, a runoff election was held between Price and Jesse Dawson which Dawson, after requesting a recount, won by ten votes out of a total of 4094 votes cast. The Dallas County Democratic Executive Committee certified Jesse Dawson as the party’s nominee on July 14,1980, and Price contested the election on the basis of a change in the absentee vote totals and alleged improprieties in the handling of the absentee ballot box.

The trial court declared Dawson the winner on August 1, 1980, and signed its judgment to that effect on August 20. The record was filed in this court on September 15,1980, and Price filed his appellant’s brief on October 6, 1980, nine days before absentee balloting began, taking twenty-one days of his allotted thirty-day time period. Thereafter, on October 8, Price filed his motion to advance the cause on the docket pursuant to the mandatory provisions of Tex.Elec.Code Ann. art. 13.30(12) (Vernon 1967). We granted the motion and advanced the cause to the earliest available setting consistent with allowing appellee equal time to prepare his brief. Meanwhile, on October 15, 1980, absentee balloting began. Appellee, on October 20, filed his motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.

An election contest is moot if it would, with certainty, interfere with the printing of the official ballot, Polk v. Davidson, 196 S.W.2d 632 (Tex.1946); and a contest also is moot if absentee balloting has begun during the pendency of the appeal.

Skelton v. Yates, 119 S.W.2d 91 (Tex.1938). Appellant agrees that the case is controlled by these authorities. Because absentee balloting began during the necessary pendency of this appeal, we conclude that the cause is now moot.

Dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1984: 21986: 11988: 21992: 11995: 11996: 12015: 12018: 12019: 119842026peak 1984 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Michael G. "Mike" Lee, Candidate for 101st District Court The Dallas County Republican Party Missy Shorey as Dallas County Republican Party Chair v. the Dallas County Democratic Party Carol Donovan, as the Dallas County Democratic Party Chair, and Staci Williams, Candidate for 101st District CourtNo. 05-18-00715-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 20, 2018)
  2. Smith v. Crawford747 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988)
  3. Bejarano v. Hunter899 S.W.2d 346 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995)
  4. Salazar v. Gonzales931 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. App.—Edinburg-Corpus Christi 1996)
  5. Moore v. Barr718 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. App. 1986)
  6. Lerma v. Ramon760 S.W.2d 727 (Tex. App.—Edinburg-Corpus Christi 1988)

Most recent

  1. Esequiel De La Paz v. Ofelia GutierrezNo. 13-19-00133-CV (Tex. App.—Edinburg-Corpus Christi Apr. 29, 2019)
  2. Michael G. "Mike" Lee, Candidate for 101st District Court The Dallas County Republican Party Missy Shorey as Dallas County Republican Party Chair v. the Dallas County Democratic Party Carol Donovan, as the Dallas County Democratic Party Chair, and Staci Williams, Candidate for 101st District CourtNo. 05-18-00715-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 20, 2018)
  3. Subrina Lynn Brenham v. Erik Wilson and Dianne GibsonNo. 05-15-00684-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 22, 2015)
  4. Salazar v. Gonzales931 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. App.—Edinburg-Corpus Christi 1996)
  5. Bejarano v. Hunter899 S.W.2d 346 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995)
  6. Nichols v. Swindle833 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. App. 1992)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Polk v. Davidson, 196 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. 1946) 61
Skelton v. Yates, 119 S.W.2d 91 (Tex. 1938) 22

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