Legal Opinion · Dissent

Burke v. Bennett

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided November 13, 2008No. 84A01-0801-CV-2Published

1DissentNajam, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that Bennett was subject to and violated the Little Hatch Act and, therefore, was ineligible to assume or be a candidate for the office of mayor of Terre Haute. See Ind.Code § 3 — 8—1—5(c)(6). Next, the majority concludes that, under our Supreme Court’s opinion in Oviatt v. Behme, 238 Ind. 69, 147 N.E.2d 897 (1958), Burke is not entitled to that office. But the majority then disregards Oviatt and holds that Burke is not required to establish a right to the office and is entitled to relief on his complaint in the form of a special election.

The…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. MitchellIndiana Supreme Court · 1998
  2. The People Ex Rel. Furman v. . CluteNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  3. Commonwealth ex rel. McLaughlin v. CluleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
  4. Perry v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. Oviatt v. BEHMEIndiana Supreme Court · 1958

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API