Maxfield v. Herbert, 2012 UT 44

Maxfield challenged the 2010 Utah gubernatorial election under Utah Code title 20A, chapter 4, contest provisions.
Maxfield and running mate Anderson finished third in the election; prior petitions alleged campaign-finance violations by Herbert and Corroon.
Maxfield sought extraordinary relief from this court and later pursued a district-court election contest under §20A-4-402(1)(b).
The district court dismissed the contest as misapplied to campaign-finance violations and ruled against eligibility-based challenges.
Maxfield timely appealed, challenging both the procedural handling and the substantive grounds for contest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural compliance with election-contest rules	Maxfield argues rules should yield to statutory procedures.	Herbert/Corroon contend motions and timing complied with statute and rules.	Rules apply; 12(b)(6) motions proper; hearing timing discretionary.
Campaign-finance violations as grounds under §20A-4-402(1)(b)	Maxfield contends violations render Herbert ineligible for office.	Herbert contends eligibility is constitutional; finance violations are outside §20A-4-402(1)(b) scope.	Not viable; ineligible refers to constitutional eligibility, not campaign-finance violations.
Election-contest grounds other than ineligibility	Maxfield invokes 'offense against the elective franchise' or 'any other cause' grounds.	Corroon/Herbert argue grounds do not authorize inquiry into violations via §20A-4-402.	Grounds not applicable; violations belong to other statutory avenues.

Archuleta v. St. Mark's Hosp., 2009 UT 36 (Utah Supreme Court, 2009) (standard of review for district-court decision on motions to dismiss)
Clayton v. Ford Motor Co., 2009 UT App 154 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2009) (docket-management discretion in trial courts)
Slisze v. Stanley-Bostitch, 1999 UT 20 (Utah Supreme Court, 1999) (trial court broad discretion in evidentiary relevance)