Ann-Eve Pedersen v. Ken Bennett

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding § 12-2030 did not require fee award when plaintiffs ultimately prevailed in action to compel Secretary of State to accept initiative petitions but legal duties were only clarified through litigation itself
• explaining that substantial compliance examines whether the public may be “defraud[ed] or deceive[d]”
• determining, in the context of a mandamus action and assessing reasonableness of attorney fees under A.R.S. § 12-2030(A), the scope of the Secretary’s legal duty to accept and file initiative petitions
• “[C]ourts liberally construe initiative requirements and do not interfere with the people’s right to initiate laws ‘unless the Constitution expressly and explicitly makes any departure from initiative filing requirements fatal.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).