Administrative Law

Appellate Advocacy

Civil Rights Litigation

Class Action Litigation

Commercial Litigation

Constitutional Law

Criminal Defense

Defamation

Domestic Relations

Election Law

Employment Law

Environmental Law

Estates Litigation

Government Matters

Grand Jury Representation

Health Care Litigation

Insurance Disputes

Invasion of Privacy

Landlord/Tenant Law

Motor Vehicle Collisions

Personal Injury Litigation

Premises Liability

Products Liability

Professional Malpractice

Real Estate

RICO Litigation

Tax Litigation

Transactional Practice

Wrongful Death Litigation

Wrongful Use of Legal   

   Proceedings

Zoning Litigation

 

                                       

ELECTION LAW

 

          Representation with respect to election issues.

          The following are examples of our representation in this practice area:

            Sprague & Sprague was responsible for a ground-breaking Pennsylvania election law decision in the area of campaign finance and third-party advertising. We were successful in obtaining a temporary restraining order which barred an out-of-state, third-party organization from sponsoring or disseminating commercials, advertisements, mailings or other electioneering materials for the purpose of influencing a statewide election without complying with Pennsylvania election laws.

            The Firm represented a candidate for state representative in a hotly contested election contest adjudicated in the federal courts.

            Acting pro bono, Sprague & Sprague obtained a ruling from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania canceling elections for the offices of Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and Judge of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on the basis that the elections had been illegally scheduled in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

            Sprague & Sprague successfully represented 136 petitioners who sought to have a court declare as invalid a ballot initiative, purportedly signed by over 27,000 registered voters. Twelve days after first gaining access to the sheets containing the alleged 27,000 signatures, we presented convincing evidence to the court that over 20,000 of those purported signatures were invalid, because numerous persons signing were not registered voters, many sheets containing the purported signatures were not properly notarized or witnessed, many of the signatures were forgeries, and various other reasons. The court declared that the papers supposedly signed by over 27,000 voters were invalid.