Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

LANGE v. MARTIN, 2016 Ark. 363 (2016)

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas Number: inarco20161027013 Visitors: 1
Filed: Oct. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 27, 2016
Summary: ROBIN F. WYNNE , Associate Justice . Chuck Lange and Bill Walmsley, Individually and on behalf of Committee to Protect Arkansas Values/Stop Casinos Now, filed an original action in this court challenging the Arkansas Secretary of State's certification of a proposed amendment to allow three casinos to operate in Arkansas for the November 8, 2016 general election ballot. The complaint contains three counts. Counts I and II challenge the ballot title of the proposed amendment. Count III challen
More

Chuck Lange and Bill Walmsley, Individually and on behalf of Committee to Protect Arkansas Values/Stop Casinos Now, filed an original action in this court challenging the Arkansas Secretary of State's certification of a proposed amendment to allow three casinos to operate in Arkansas for the November 8, 2016 general election ballot. The complaint contains three counts. Counts I and II challenge the ballot title of the proposed amendment. Count III challenges the signatures on the petitions submitted by the Sponsor Intervenors. We bifurcated the counts, electing to consider Counts I and II separately from Count III. The court has already issued an opinion granting as to Counts I and II of the complaint. Lange v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 337.

Intervenors Arkansas Wins in 2016, LLC, and Arkansas Winning Initiative Inc. filed a petition for rehearing from this court's decision granting as to Counts I and II of the complaint. Respondent Mark Martin, as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas, has filed a motion to dismiss Count III of the complaint as moot. An issue is moot when a decision by this court would have no practical effect on a then existing legal controversy. See Newman v. Crawford County Cir. Ct., 2014 Ark. 308. On October 21, 2016, this court denied the petition for rehearing on our opinion addressing Counts I and II. This renders any possible decision by this court on Count III without practical effect. Also, none of our exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. Respondent's motion to dismiss Count III of the complaint is well-taken and is hereby granted.

Motion granted; Count III of the complaint dismissed.

Mandate to issue immediately.

Special Justice WARREN E. DUPWE joins in this opinion.

GOODSON, J., not participating.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer