Denial of due process in state appellate procedures for civil litigants seeking to vindicate property rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. When a state has by statute or constitutional provision granted civil litigants the right to an appeal, must the state’s appellate procedures provide “due process” consonant with that guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to litigants at trial? Suggested Answer: Yes. Although this Court has not yet held that a state must grant civil litigants the right to an appeal, the dueprocess principles that this Court has already articulated under the Fourteenth Amendment require that those states which have granted civil litigants a right of appeal must ensure that the appellate courts provide appellants with due process consonant with that guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to litigants at trial. 2. If the due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution extends to the appellate procedures of those states that have granted civil litigants a right of appeal, are civil appellants in those states who seek to vindicate property rights and who comply with all of the state’s procedural requirements entitled to receive a ruling on the merits of their appeals? Suggested Answer: Yes. 3. Did the Superior Court and Supreme Court of Pennsylvania deprive the petitioner here of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to rule on u the merits of his appeal, a refusal that had been based solely upon the mistaken belief of a panel of Superior Court judges that the petitioner had not cited cases in his briefs, and then refusing to reconsider the matter after the petitioner by timely applications re-cited the multiple case citations that he had cited in support of each of his arguments but that the panel had originally overlooked? Suggested Answer: Yes. PARTIES As set forth in the case caption, the petitioner is Casimir M. Toczylowski (“Mr. Toczylowski”), who was the plaintiff in the original trial-court proceeding and the appellant in the appellate proceedings, and the respondents are Samantha G. Giuliano and Paul P. Palladino (“Respondents”), who were the defendants in the trial-court proceeding and appellees in the appellate proceedings.