TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Dorgan

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF WILLIAM J. DORGAN TO CONTEST THE ELECTION OF MICHAEL POLLOTTA TO THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OF THE BOROUGH OF PALISADES PARK PURSUANT TO N. J. S. A. 19:29-1 ET SEQ

In re Dorgan, 210 A.2d 67 (N.J. 1965)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 17, 1965
Citations
210 A.2d 6744 N.J. 4401965 N.J. LEXIS 243

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered Per Curiam

This case involves the election for the office of Mayor of the Borough of Palisades Park held in November 1964. The trial court ordered the election set aside. We certi *441 fied the ensuing appeal before hearing in the Appellate Division.

The original tally and the tally on recount showed 3,112 votes for Michael Pollotta and 3,108 for William J. Dorgan. After trial on a complaint of illegal voting, the court found that four such votes were cast for Pollotta reducing the vote for him to 3,108, the same number recorded for Dorgan, but found that one absentee ballot counted for Dorgan was invalid because, although the intent to vote for him was clear, the mark was placed just outside the square provided for it. The court felt it was obliged to disallow that vote under In re Keogh-Dwyer, 85 N. J. Super. 188 (App. Div. 1964), in which matter an appeal is now before us. There were 15 additional illegal votes as to which the trial court concluded it was unable to say for whom they were cast. Some of those voters said they voted for Dorgan and some for Pollotta, but the trial judge, who had the benefit of seeing those witnesses, was not persuaded to credit their unsupported statements. Finally, the votes recorded on the voting machines exceeded by six the number of persons who signed the voting books and the number of voting authorities issued.

We think that upon this factual complex the trial court correctly concluded that neither candidate was entitled to a certificate of election and that the election be set aside.

The judgment is affirmed. No costs.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Sciiettino and Haneman —7.

For reversal—None.

How later courts describe this case

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

1966: 11968: 11972: 11976: 11979: 11985: 11989: 219662026peak 1989 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Granados Navedo v. Rodríguez Estrada124 P.R. Dec. 1 (1989) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
  2. In re Application of Moffat361 A.2d 74 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
  3. In re Mallon556 A.2d 1271 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989)
  4. Application of James T. Murphy243 A.2d 832 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1968)
  5. In re 1984 General Election497 A.2d 577 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985)
  6. In re Bonsanto's Application409 A.2d 290 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)

Most recent

  1. Granados Navedo v. Rodríguez Estrada124 P.R. Dec. 1 (1989) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
  2. In re Mallon556 A.2d 1271 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989)
  3. In re 1984 General Election497 A.2d 577 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985)
  4. In re Bonsanto's Application409 A.2d 290 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)
  5. In re Application of Moffat361 A.2d 74 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
  6. Young v. Northern Terminals, Inc.290 A.2d 186 (Vt. 1972)

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