No. 18-108
David Duncan v. GEICO General Insurance Company
Tags: 14th-amendment 7th-amendment civil-procedure civil-rights constitution constitutional-interpretation due-process erie-doctrine erie-railroad-co-v-tompkins federal-case-law federal-common-law federal-courts judicial-precedent procedural-law substantive-law supreme-court-precedent
Key Terms:
DueProcess Jurisdiction
DueProcess Jurisdiction
Latest Conference:
2018-10-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether federal courts are wrongfully developing and applying federal case law in derogation of the U.S. Constitution and the established U.S. Supreme Court precedent of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether federal courts are wrongfully developing and applying federal case law in derogation of the U.S. Constitution and the established U.S. Supreme Court precedent of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).
Docket Entries
2018-10-09
Petition DENIED.
2018-10-01
Supplemental brief of petitioner David Duncan filed. (Distributed)
2018-09-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.
2018-08-23
Brief of respondent GEICO General Insurance Company in opposition filed.
2018-07-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 23, 2018)
Attorneys
David Duncan
Karl Frederick Pansler — The Pansler Law Firm, PA, Petitioner
Karl Frederick Pansler — The Pansler Law Firm, PA, Petitioner
GEICO General Insurance Company
B. Richard Young — Young, Bill, Boles, Palmer & Duke, P.A., Respondent
B. Richard Young — Young, Bill, Boles, Palmer & Duke, P.A., Respondent