Thursday, December 03, 2009
ENTRY denying [62] Motion to Stay - The motion to stay filed by the intervening defendant State of Indiana (dkt 62) and joined in by the defendants is denied without prejudice because the State fails to associate its pragmatic reasons for a stay in this case with an established legal doctrine, application of which would yield the result sought in the motion. Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 12/2/2009. (TRG)
The motion to stay has been pretty much moot anyway for awhile, because judge McKinney ruled on the motion for injunction (denying it) and judge William Lawrence ruled on the motion for certification (denying it). Still, it's nice to see the state lose a round re its frivolous motions.
I am currently making some notes for a brief to the Indiana Supreme Court for Rokita. Dependin g on whether my motion to intervene is granted or rejected, I might file a brief as a party or as an amicus.
The motion to stay has been pretty much moot anyway for awhile, because judge McKinney ruled on the motion for injunction (denying it) and judge William Lawrence ruled on the motion for certification (denying it). Still, it's nice to see the state lose a round re its frivolous motions.
I am currently making some notes for a brief to the Indiana Supreme Court for Rokita. Dependin g on whether my motion to intervene is granted or rejected, I might file a brief as a party or as an amicus.
