Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Donaghey v. Attorney General
Citations: 120 Ariz. 105; 584 P.2d 569; 1978 Ariz. App. LEXIS 633Docket: No. 2 CA-CIV 2766
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; March 30, 1978; Arizona; State Appellate Court
Vera D. Donaghey, a registered voter in Pinal County, appealed the dismissal of her petition for a writ of mandamus, which aimed to compel the Attorney General of Arizona to initiate quo warranto proceedings concerning the incorporation election for the Town of Superior. Donaghey contended that the incorporation election was invalid due to violations of election rules, including inadequate notice and the lack of absentee ballots. She argued that these irregularities rendered the subsequent town council election invalid, with council members unlawfully holding office. Despite Donaghey's claims and her communication with the Attorney General regarding these violations, he declined to act, stating that the evidence suggested sufficient notice had been given based on high voter turnout. This refusal led her to file a complaint in Pinal County Superior Court, which was dismissed on the grounds of her standing. In her appeal, Donaghey asserted that the Attorney General had a legal duty under A.R.S. 12-2041 to pursue quo warranto proceedings and that his refusal constituted an abuse of discretion. She cited precedent indicating that if undisputed facts demonstrate unlawful holding of a public office, the Attorney General could be compelled to act via mandamus. The court emphasized that in motions to dismiss, all well-pleaded facts must be accepted as true, and dismissal should only occur if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot obtain relief under any circumstances. Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the dismissal of a case for failure to state a claim. In Folk v. City of Phoenix, the appellant argued that the absence of absentee ballots violated election laws. If true, this violation could have limited the electorate's ability to influence the election outcome, thereby undermining the election's fairness. The appellee's decision not to pursue quo warranto proceedings in light of this potentially flawed election could be seen as an abuse of discretion. The court found that the appellant's petition contained sufficient grounds to warrant mandamus relief, indicating that the motion to dismiss was improperly granted. The relevant statutes, A.R.S. 16-1101 and A.R.S. 16-1102, mandate provisions for absentee voting, including the process for requesting and receiving absentee ballots. Additionally, if the Attorney General declines to initiate a legal action, a private individual may seek court permission to do so, although they must have a personal claim to the office or franchise in question. The court ultimately reversed the dismissal.