Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

307 Md. 548

515 A.2d 767

Snyder v. Glusing

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 8, 1986

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1986-10-08

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1996

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“I’ve come to the conclusion that Article 33, Section 19-5 makes the standard clear and convincing evidence, which is precisely defined, has been defined to me in argu ment____ [TJhat standard was created because I don’t think the Legislature intended to empower a trial court judge to lightly throw out an election---- I think that the clear and convincing ... also applies to [“might have changed the outcome of an election already held”]. It is up to this Court to determine on the evidence whether it is clear and convincing that the election in this case might have been different without the violation. The violation in this case, I believe, is the failure to designate the candidate or committee for whom the treasurer acts as required by 26-16(a)(7)---- And I am persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that there was an act or omission under Article 33 that involved— that was involved and materially involved the rights of interested parties and affected the purity of the elections process. But I have no evidence, in my view, which is clear and convincing, that that violation, absent that violation, it might have changed the outcome of an election already held. And, therefore, I find for the defendants.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Snyder v. Glusing

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-10-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM:

¶1 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).

¶2 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.

¶3 Mandate to issue forthwith.

¶4 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.

/307/md/548 · .json · Public domain