Legal Opinion
In Re Nomination Paper of Nader
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided August 22, 2006No. 198 MAP 2004PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*455 OPINION
Justice NEWMAN.
Appellants Ralph Nader (Nader) and Peter Miguel Camejo (Camejo) appeal two Orders of the Commonwealth Court assessing costs against them individually and against their unsuccessful campaign for the respective offices of President and Vice-President of the United States. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Orders of the Commonwealth Court that required Appellants to pay transcription and stenography costs in the amount of $82,102.19 to Appellees.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellees are registered voters in Pennsylvania who waged a successful battle to set aside…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Anderson v. CelebrezzeSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Burdick v. TakushiSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Thunberg v. StrauseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- In Re Nomination of FlahertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Lucchino v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Constitution Party of Pennsylv v. Carol AicheleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
- Banfield, Aplts. v. Secretary of the ComSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- In Re Nomination Petition of FarneseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Constitution Party v. CortesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2016
- In Re Nomination Petition of FarneseCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.