Craig v. Brown
WILLIAM CRAIG v. L. H. BROWN, Secretary of State
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William H. Beatty (author), Thomas B. McFarland
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
The Court.
We are of opinion that the application for a writ of mandate should be denied, holding that the designation “ National Democratic ” is not calculated to deceive. Henshaw, J., Van Fleet, J., Harrison, J., Temple, J.
Concurrence — McFarland
McFarland, J., concurring.
I concur in the judgment ; but I also think that the question—under the peculiar form which this petition for a writ takes—was determined by the secretary of state when he accepted and filed the certificate, and that his action cannot be reviewed on this proceeding.
Garoutte, J., dissented.
Dissent — Beatty
Beatty, C. J., dissenting.
I dissent. I cannot distinguish this case from the Dolan and Ewing cases, in which we held that candidates nominated by petition are not entitled to a party designation which might mislead voters.
Cited by
- Partridge v. Devoto L.A. No. 1834. · 1905-10-27