|
This just in… Supreme Court grants stay in capital bill case
Tuesday, Feb 1, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller * 2:32 pm - I’ll post the order in a minute granting a stay of the appellate ruling declaring the state’s capital bill to be unconstitutional.  * Basically, what this means is that everything with the capital bill is now status quo ante. Drivers service fees don’t have to be immediately refunded and projects apparently can carry on, at least until the Supremes rule otherwise (or not).
|
 |
|
|
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 1, 11 @ 4:03 pm:
Any legal eagles know if that indicates which way they’ll bounce?
- dave - Tuesday, Feb 1, 11 @ 4:46 pm:
It doesn’t indicate anything.
The State filed a motion for a stay, and Wirtz filed a motion saying he was fine with a stay. So the ISC granted it.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 1, 11 @ 4:56 pm:
dave, we had that info yesterday. The point is, it’s stayed.
- Edison Parker - Tuesday, Feb 1, 11 @ 5:34 pm:
Rich, I think you are being a bit short with Dave.
“The point” is not that is was stayed because that’s not what wordslinger’s asked. He asked if the granting of the motion provided an indication as to a SC ruling. Dave answered that, though he could have answered it better by explaining that courts usually grant agreed (or expressed “no objection”) motions and therefore one should not draw an inference from it.