Dool v. Burke
This text of 497 F. App'x 782 (Dool v. Burke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
A group of Kansas voters, none of them [784]*784lawyers, sued the attorney members of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission (Commission) and the Clerk of the Appellate Courts requesting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent any vacancies from being filled while this lawsuit is pending. The Commission is composed of five attorneys elected by attorneys and four non-attorneys appointed by the Governor. Appellant voters claim the selection of the Commission’s attorney members violates the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause because the franchise is closed to all but attorneys. The district court denied the preliminary requests for relief before going on to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The voters appealed from the dismissal.
AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is an unpublished decision, not binding precedent. 10th Cir. R. [784]*78432.1(A). Citation to unpublished decisions is not prohibited. Fed. R.App. 32.1.
It is appropriate as it relates to law of the case, issue preclusion and claim preclusion. Unpublished decisions may also be cited for their persuasive value. 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Citation to an order and judgment must be accompanied by an appropriate parenthetical notation — (unpublished). Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
497 F. App'x 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dool-v-burke-ca10-2012.