|
ROMINGER
LEGAL
|
||||||||||
|
Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions -
Florida Law
|
||||||||||
| Need Legal Help? | ||||||||||
|
NOT FINDING
WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This
court case was taken from the Florida Court's web site. Search our site
for more cases - CLICK HERE |
|
|
Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw. Supreme Court of Florida THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2000 ALBERT GORE, JR., ET AL. vs. KATHERINE HARRIS, ETC., ET AL. Case No. SC00-2431 DCA Case No. 1D00-4745 Circuit Court Case No. 00-2808 ______________________________________________________________ _____ Appellants Appellees ORDER ON REMAND This case is before the Court on remand from the United States Supreme Court. See Bush v. Gore, No. 00-949 (U.S. Dec. 12, 2000). The per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court majority specified that in order for a manual recount to continue: It would require not only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. In addition, the Secretary of State has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a function for which the machines were not designed. If a recount of overvotes were also required, 1 perhaps even a second screening would be necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the Secretary of State, as required by Fla. Stat. § 101.015 (2000). Id., slip op. at 11-12. The Supreme Court majority ultimately concluded that: Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed. Id., slip op. at 12. On the date of the subject election, the Florida Election Code did not provide the elements necessary for a resolution of the disputed issues, based on the constitutional parameters expressed by the United States Supreme Court. Accordingly, relief cannot be granted, and this case is dismissed. Opinion may follow. No motion for rehearing will be allowed. WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. A True Copy TEST: Thomas D. Hall Clerk, Supreme Court 2 tc Served: MITCHELL W. BERGER ANDREW J. MCMAHON JOHN D.C. NEWTON, II BRUCE ROGOW DAVID BOIES BEVERLY A. POHL W. DEXTER DOUGLASS ROBERT M. MONTGOMERY, JR. JOHN J. CORRIGAN MICHAEL S. MULLIN RONALD A. KLAIN GARY L. PRINTY DENNIS NEWMAN W. ROBERT VEZINA, III ANDREW J. PINCUS FREDERICK J. SPRINGER JEFFREY D. ROBINSON TERRELL C. MADIGAN JOSEPH SANDLER HAROLD R. MARDENBOROUGH, JR. THERESA WYNN ROSEBOROUGH CHRISTOPHER BARKAS KENDALL COFFEY WILLIAM KEMPER JENNINGS MARK R. STEINBERG HAROLD MCLEAN BENEDICT P. KUEHNE LARRY KLAYMAN DEBORAH K. KEARNEY G. IRVIN TERRELL KEREY CARPENTER DARYL B. BRISTOW ALVIN LINDSAY, III R. FRANK MYERS JOSEPH P. KLOCK, JR. JASON L. UNGER JOHN W. LITTLE, III GARY R. RUTLEDGE ROBERT W. PITTMAN CRAIG A. MEYER GABRIEL E. NIETO HON. DAVE LANG, CLERK WALTER J. HARVEY HON. N. SANDERS SAULS, JUDGE RICARDO MARTINEZ-CID HON. JON S. WHEELER, CLERK BARRY RICHARD BENJAMIN L. GINSBERG GEORGE J. TERWILLIGER, III TIMOTHY E. FLANIGAN KIRK VAN TINE MURRAY A. GREENBERG LEE KRAFTCHICK THOMAS A. TUCKER RONZETTI JEFFREY PAUL EHRLICH LEONARD W. BERGER 3
|
|
|
NOW - CASE
LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try
it for FREE
We
now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!
Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board
TERMS
OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES
Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2009.
A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.
