No. 19-1359
Michelle Dawn Murphy v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma
Tags: an abuse of discretion because it violates the pa and wrong factually about the issue it reached ou which was based on an issue not presented on appe abuse-of-discretion appellate-procedure appellate-review civil-procedure due-process party-presentation sineneng-smith standing summary-judgment tenth-circuit united-states-v-sineneng-smith
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess
SocialSecurity DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is the Tenth Circuit's affirmance of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee City of Tulsa an abuse of discretion?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED Is the Tenth Circuit’s affirmance of summary. judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee City of Tulsa, which was based on an issue not presented on appeal, and wrong factually about the issue it reached out to create, an abuse of discretion because it violates the party presentation jurisprudence articulated in United States y. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020), and its precursor cases? . ii
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-07-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-24
Reply of petitioner Michelle Dawn Murphy filed. (Distributed)
2020-07-13
Brief of respondent City of Tulsa in opposition filed.
2020-06-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 13, 2020)
Attorneys
City of Tulsa
Gerald Matthew Bender — City of Tulsa Legal Department, Respondent
Gerald Matthew Bender — City of Tulsa Legal Department, Respondent
Michelle Dawn Murphy
Jason Lee Glass — Baum Glass Jayne Carwile & Peters, Petitioner
Jason Lee Glass — Baum Glass Jayne Carwile & Peters, Petitioner