Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Jul. 19, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 July 19, 2010 Before DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge No. 09-1404 ARTHUR PARRA, SR., et al., Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Eastern Division. v. No. 07 C 1506 LANGDON NEAL, et al., John W. Darrah, Judge. Defendants-Appellees. ORDER No judge of the court having called for a vo
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 July 19, 2010 Before DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge No. 09-1404 ARTHUR PARRA, SR., et al., Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Eastern Division. v. No. 07 C 1506 LANGDON NEAL, et al., John W. Darrah, Judge. Defendants-Appellees. ORDER No judge of the court having called for a vot..
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 July 19, 2010 Before DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge No. 09-1404 ARTHUR PARRA, SR., et al., Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Eastern Division. v. No. 07 C 1506 LANGDON NEAL, et al., John W. Darrah, Judge. Defendants-Appellees. ORDER No judge of the court having called for a vote on the Petition for Rehearing With Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc, filed by Plaintiffs-Appellants on July 7, 2010, and all of the judges on the original panel having voted to deny the same, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing With Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. The opinion of the court is revised as follows: On pages 5-6, we delete the text from, “The plaintiffs cite to no authority for their assumption that the Board had the legal authority to postpone election day only in the 25th Ward, . . .” through “The plaintiffs provide no grounds for federal court interference with the state supreme court’s decision or the Board’s implementation of that decision.2 ”
