Lazar v. Ganim
Citations
- 334 Conn. 73
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 9-329a [a]), ''[a]ny (1) elector . . . aggrieved by a ruling of an election official in connection with any primary . . . [or] (2) elector . . . who alleges that there has been a mistake in the count of the votes cast at such primary . . . may bring [a] complaint to . . . the Superior Court for appropriate action.'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 9-329 [b]), a court may order a new primary if it finds that, ''but for the error in the ruling of the election official, [or] any mistake in the count of the votes . . . the result of [the primary election] might have been different and [the court] is unable to determine the result of such primary.'' The plaintiffs, three electors in the 2019 Democratic primary election for municipal office in the city of Bridgeport, brought an action pursuant to § 9-329a (a), challenging the results of that election and seeking an order directing a new primary election on the basis of, inter alia, various alleged improprieties in the handling of absentee ballots. The plaintiffs claimed that certain individuals associated with the defendants, who are certain Bridgeport election officials and certain candidates for elected office in the primary, had engaged in improper primary election activity and violated certain state election laws by virtue of, inter alia, the alleged misrepresentation of absentee voting eligibility and the improper handling of absentee ballots. As a result of the alleged improprieties, the plaintiffs claimed that they were aggrieved by the ruling of an election official within the meaning of § 9-329a (a) (1) and that there had been a mistake in the count of the votes within the meaning of § 9-329a (a) (2). The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, claiming, inter alia, that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they were not personally aggrieved by the ruling of any election official. The trial court granted the motion as to the claims brought under § 9-329a (a) (1), 74 DECEMBER
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- voters contested election results based on claim that defendants improp- erly handled absentee ballots in violation of § 9-140b
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Vertefeuille
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Fay v. MerrillSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-02-11· cited 11×
- Francis v. Board of Pardons & ParolesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-03-16· cited 11×
- U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Rothermel.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-06-23· cited 5×
- Fay v. MerrillSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-04-06· cited 3×
- Cohen v. RossiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-06-20· cited 3×
- Airey v. FelicianoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-07-29· cited 3×
- In re Criminal Complaint & Application for Arrest WarrantSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-10-03· cited 1×
Cites
19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-05-21· cited 296×
- Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. GillSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1978-08-01· cited 231×
- Schwartz v. Town Plan & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1975-02-25· cited 55×
- Bortner v. Town of WoodbridgeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-08-17· cited 51×
- Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-02-12· cited 44×
- Caruso v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-02-26· cited 38×
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. City of New LondonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-07-03· cited 34×
- William Crist v. Commission on Presidential Debates and Janet Braun, Director of the Commission on Presidential DebatesSecond Circuit· 2001-08-21· cited 32×
- Bongiorno Supermarket, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-11-11· cited 26×
- Committee for an Effective Judiciary v. StateMontana Supreme Court· 1984-04-03· cited 23×
- KAUFFMAN v. OsserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1970-11-12· cited 21×
- Gary Excavating Co. v. Town of North HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1972-07-18· cited 20×
- Tremont Public Advisors, LLC v. Connecticut Resources Recovery AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-11-12· cited 20×
- Bauer v. SoutoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-04-25· cited 15×
- McDermott v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1963-05-09· cited 14×
- Feehan v. MarconeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-01-30· cited 13×
- Penn v. IrizarrySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-12-31· cited 11×
- Keeley v. AyalaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-04-03· cited 10×
- Caruso v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-11-05· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.