The Indiana Supreme Court has refused to sidestep the state’s intermediate appellate court on a judicial-election issue
from Lake County, while the lower appeals court decided not to grant an expedited-hearing request despite the pending election.
At IL deadline, Lake Circuit judicial prospect William I. Fine, an attorney in Highland, remained on the ballot
after the justices turned down two emergency requests to intervene and the COA declined to rush briefing before the Nov. 2
general election that could put Fine on the bench.
The case is Michael Lambert v. William I Fine, No. 49A04-1009-PL556, which stems from an Indiana Election Commission
decision in early September that took Fine off the ballot. That left voters with only one choice – Merrillville Town
Judge George Paras, who won the Democratic primary in May to replace retiring Lake Circuit Judge Lorenzo Arredondo.
A Marion County judge reversed that decision Sept. 13 and granted a temporary restraining order that stopped the state from
keeping Fine off the Nov. 2 ballot. Judge Michael Keele noted that no basis in law exists to interpret state party rules in
a way to override a statute and that the commission doesn’t have the subject matter jurisdiction to endorse state party
rules, let alone at the expense of a statutory grant of power to a county chair.
Fine’s challenger Michael Lambert, a Winfield town council member who argues that a party caucus should have been held
to choose the Republican candidate, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals Sept. 17. That same day he filed an emergency
motion for the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction because of the public importance at issue.
Justices declined those requests, refusing to take the appeal away from the appellate court at this point. The Court of Appeals
then declined the expedited request, and denied Fine’s motion to dismiss.
Rehearing "Candidacy issues?" IL Sept. 15-28, 2010














Never heard of remand to another state. How often does that happen?
I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.