Stanson v. Brown

California Court of Appeal Jul 9, 1975 No. Civ. 14400Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action to challenge an election because he did not allege conduct proscribed by the Elections Code or the requisite causation to change the election outcome. Furthermore, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because the defendant's actions were within his statutory authority.

Issues

Whether the complaint stated a cause of action to set aside an election and enjoin bond issuance under Elections Code section 20021.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Stanson failed to allege facts or conduct proscribed by section 20021, subdivision (c); he did not allege the causation element required by Canales, nor facts to support his prayer to enjoin the Treasurer”

“The director’s involvement in the election, as outlined by Stanson, was well within the scope of his authority as outlined by law.”

Opinion

THE COURT.

Sam Stanson appeals a judgment of dismissal entered after a demurrer to his complaint was granted without leave to amend.

[814]

Stanson challenged the passage of the State Beach, Park, Recreational and Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1974 (Bond Act) (Pub.-Resources Code, §§ 5096.71-5096.100). The Bond Act was presented to the electorate in June 1974 as Proposition 1 pursuant to California Constitution, article XVI, section 1. The proposition passed by a margin of 885,317 votes, with a total of 4,460,431 votes cast on the measure.

In his complaint Stanson alleged the Director of Parks and Recreation improperly spent public monies to promote passage of the Bond Act and requested the trial court set aside the election and enjoin the State Treasurer from issuing any bonds under the Act. Specifically, Stanson alleged the Parks and Recreation Director (1) authorized the expenditure of public funds to promote public support for the bond issue, (2) made speeches supporting the issue, (3) misstated the capacity of the proposed park facilities, and (4) misstated budgetary figures.of his department relating to planning and park acquisition (thus misleading the public as to the real need for the Bond Act). The trial court found no cause of action was stated and sustained a demurrer without leave to amend.

On appeal Stanson contends the complaint states a cause of action to set aside the election and to enjoin bond issuance.

Stanson has the burden to show either the demurrer was sustained erroneously or that to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion

(Hilton

Board of Supervisors, 1

Cal.App.3d 708, 716 [86 Cal.Rptr. 754]). All allegations are taken as true even though their proof appears unlikely

(Shaeffer

Stanson v. Brown

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief