ILNews

High court grants order in election case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court issued an order today granting the Marion County Election Board's corrected motion to remand a case pursuant to Appellate Rule 37. On Oct. 31, 2008, Marion Circuit Court entered an order granting an injunction and declaratory relief in Marion County Election Board v. Raymond J. Schoettle, et al., No. 49S00-0811-CV-586, to which the Supreme Court granted transfer Nov. 3, 2008.

The case stems from a challenge to absentee ballots in Marion County after a circuit judge ordered the election board to treat all challenged mail-in absentee votes as provisional ballots and set them aside for future resolution by the board. The justices upheld the Marion Circuit judge's original order.

After the high court granted the election board a brief stay of the appeal, the board filed the corrected motion to remand. Both parties also filed a joint stipulation and request for relief regarding remand of all parties, asking the court to remand the case to the trial court but retain jurisdiction to any subsequent appeal.

The high court remanded the case without prejudice and retains jurisdiction to any subsequent appeal of a final judgment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT