In re Egan

How courts have described this case

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

• The court held that no date was needed on the absentee ballot in order to substantially comply. \The right of the voter to be safeguarded against disfranchisement and to have his intent implemented ... transcends technical errors.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• Roe v. Mobile County Appointment Bd.
  Supreme Court of Alabama· 1995-03-31· cited 21×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Morris
  New York Court of Appeals· 1984-02-28· cited 247×
• Higby v. Mahoney
  New York Court of Appeals· 1979-09-04· cited 75×
• Erickson v. Blair
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1983-10-11· cited 21×
• MATTER OF WEINBERGER v. Jackson
  New York Court of Appeals· 1967-06-01· cited 18×
• Weinberger v. Jackson
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1967-05-22· cited 16×
• Nicolaysen v. D'Apice
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1984-03-01· cited 13×
• Stotler v. Fetzer
  Tex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)· 1982-02-18· cited 10×
• Miles v. Eltzroth
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1976-07-15· cited 7×
• Ballien v. Alpert
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1973-08-02· cited 7×
• In re the General Election in Bethlehem Township
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1962-05-28· cited 7×
• Johnson v. Hayden
  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin· 1981-11-24· cited 5×