palmer v marion county

The OCR came out a bit iffy, but there might be readable parts here:

OrDER

Plaintiffs motion, filed November 1,2006, for leave for interlocutory appeal of the denial of motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, is hereby
[~] Granted [ ] Denied


Distribution:
R. Stewart I. Stewart L. Karlson H. Dean
--------------
STATE OF INDIANA )
)SS:
COUNTY OF MARION )
)
JOELL PALMER, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
vs. )
)
MARION COUNTY, STATE OF )
INDIANA, 1. BRADLEY KING, )
TODD ROKIT A, KRIST! )
ROBERTSON, DORIS ANN )
SADLER, JOHN DOE #1-4, JANE )
DOE #1-3, SECURATEX, JACK )
COTTEY, )
)
Defendants. )


IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 49D04060 1 OCT 44113
@ l?I.l-JE:D
JAN 08 2007

FINDINGS OF FACTS. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. AND JUDGMENT
I. Findings of Fact
1. Plaintiff, Joell Palmer, is a registered Indiana voter and the nominated candidate of the Libertarian Party for the lOOth District state representative race.
2. Defendant, Marion County, is a municipality in the State of Indiana.
3. Defendant, the State of Indiana, is a co-equal sovereign entity in the United
States federal system.
4. Defendant, Todd Rokita, is the secretary of state for the State of Indiana.


7. Defendants, John Doe #1-4, are employees of the secretary of state's office who communicated the State ofIndiana's voter licensing program to potential
voters.
8. Defendants, Jane Doe # 1- 3 are officials in Plaintiff s precinct.
9. Defendant, Securatex, is a company contracted by Marion County to conduct searches of people trying to enter the City-County building in Marion County. 10. Defendant, Jack Catley, is a supervising employee of Securatex responsible for the City-County building searches.
11. On October 27, 2006, Plaintiff fi,led a Complaint against Defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief, aQ9.:~ought a Preliminar):')njunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent Defendants, Marion County and the State ofIndiana, from requiring any voter, including Plaintiff, in the November 2006 election to show government issued identification as a condition of voting, absent a search warrant.
12. Also on October 27,2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction, along with a Memo in Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction.
II. Condusions of Law
1. Trial Rule 65(A)(1) does not allow a preliminary injunctiqn to be issued without opportunity for a hearing upon notice to the adyerse party. None of the documents filed with the CO)lrt on October 27, 2006 indicated that notice of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction had been given to Defendants.

2. Trial Rule 65(B)(2) does not allow a Temporary Restraining Order to be•
notice to the adverse party absent certification in writing by applicant's attorney of the efforts made to give notice and the reasons
supporting a claim that notice should not be•required. Plaintiffs Complaint
did not make such certification, nor did it give reasons supporting that notice
should not be required.
III. Judgment
''f~liiil'titf'§M()tion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Temporary Injunction was denied .. z;;:i.", .
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this )? th
[I'll plan to post a cleaned up version of this in a few days. It gives the general idea.]