ILNews

Candidate on ballot as appeal proceeds

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT