Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Westermann Vs. Nelson

Westermann vs Nelson

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Oct-20-1972
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/102959

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
409 U.S. 1236
Subject
Election

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Election

Key legal issue
Election

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Westermann

Respondent

Nelson

Excerpt

westermann v. nelson - 409 u.s. 1236 (1972) u.s. supreme court westermann v. nelson, 409 u.s. 1236 (1972) westermann v. nelson no. a-412 decided october 20, 1972 409 u.s. 1236 on motion for injunction syllabus the motion for injunction pending appeal of candidates who failed to secure ballot placement for the november 7, 1972, election in arizona is denied because orderly election processes would likely be disrupted by granting so tardy an application. mr. justice douglas, circuit justice. petitioners are candidates of the american independent party who complain of their inability to get on the ballot in arizona for the november 7, 1972, election. they brought suit in the district court, but their complaint was dismissed. they desire to appeal to the court of appeals, but were denied a preliminary injunction by a judge of that court. they now apply to me as circuit justice. the complaint may have merit. but the time element is now short, and the ponderous arizona election machinery is already under way, printing the ballots. absentee ballots have indeed already been sent out, and some have been returned. the costs of reprinting all the ballots will be substantial, and it may well be that no decision on the merits can be reached by the court of appeals in time to reprint the ballots excluding petitioners, should they lose on the merits. i have been unable to hear oral argument, and have only the papers of the parties before me. on the basis of these papers, i have concluded that, in fairness to the parties, i must deny the injunction, not because the cause lacks merit but because orderly election page 409 u. s. 1237 processes would likely be disrupted by so late an action. the time element has plagued many of these election cases, but one in my position cannot give relief in a responsible way when the application is as tardy as this one. so i deny the injunction.

Full Judgment

Westermann v. Nelson - 409 U.S. 1236 (1972)
U.S. Supreme Court Westermann v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 1236 (1972)

Westermann v. Nelson

No. A-412

Decided October 20, 1972

409 U.S. 1236

ON MOTION FOR INJUNCTION

SYLLABUS

The motion for injunction pending appeal of candidates who failed to secure ballot placement for the November 7, 1972, election in Arizona is denied because orderly election processes would likely be disrupted by granting so tardy an application.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, Circuit Justice.

Petitioners are candidates of the American Independent Party who complain of their inability to get on the ballot in Arizona for the November 7, 1972, election.

They brought suit in the District Court, but their complaint was dismissed. They desire to appeal to the Court of Appeals, but were denied a preliminary injunction by a judge of that court. They now apply to me as Circuit Justice.

The complaint may have merit. But the time element is now short, and the ponderous Arizona election machinery is already under way, printing the ballots. Absentee ballots have indeed already been sent out, and some have been returned. The costs of reprinting all the ballots will be substantial, and it may well be that no decision on the merits can be reached by the Court of Appeals in time to reprint the ballots excluding petitioners, should they lose on the merits.

I have been unable to hear oral argument, and have only the papers of the parties before me.

On the basis of these papers, I have concluded that, in fairness to the parties, I must deny the injunction, not because the cause lacks merit but because orderly election

Page 409 U. S. 1237

processes would likely be disrupted by so late an action. The time element has plagued many of these election cases, but one in my position cannot give relief in a responsible way when the application is as tardy as this one.

So I deny the injunction.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial