Smith v. King (Rehearing)

FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:            ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE SCOTT KING:
                     
DOUGLAS M. GRIMES                JAMES B. MEYER
Gary, Indiana                         Meyer & Godshalk, P.C.
                            Gary, Indiana

                            ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
                            CROSS-APPELLANT LAKE COUNTY
                            BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATION:
        
                             J. JUSTIN MURPHY
                            Murphy Law Firm
                            Hammond, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

VERNON SMITH, ) ) Appellant, ) ) vs. ) No. 45A03-9907-CV-287 ) SCOTT KING and LAKE COUNTY BOARD ) OF ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATION, ) ) Appellees. )
    
APPEAL FROM THE LAKE CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Lorenzo Arredondo, Judge
Cause No. 45C01-9905-MI-1290
    

September 30, 1999

OPINION - ON REHEARING

NAJAM, Judge     The Appellant, Vernon Smith, has filed a Petition for Rehearing alleging various reasons why this Court's decision, issued September 24, 1999, is thought to be erroneous. In our opinion we affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Smith's election contest petition. The panel has granted rehearing, and the judges have met in conference and considered Smith's Petition. After due deliberation, we conclude that the Petition is without merit.
    Our Order, dated September 28, 1999, which stayed release of the voting system is continued, and the parties are ordered to maintain the status quo, until 5:00 o'clock p.m. Indianapolis time, October 5, 1999, at which time the stay shall expire.
    At every step this Court has considered this appeal on an expedited basis, with accelerated deadlines. The Court has not considered any filings received after 12:00 o'clock noon on this date. The parties are directed to transmit forthwith the originals of all filings that have been previously transmitted to the Court by facsimile.
    Appellant's Petition for Rehearing is granted, and the Court now-reaffirms its opinion issued herein on September 24, 1999.
    DARDEN, J., and BAILEY, J. concur.