No. 19-480

John Hankins, et al. v. Barry Seifman, et al.

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-10-10
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: attorney-fees civil-procedure civil-rights contract contract-law court-decisions due-process federalism judicial-overreach jurisdiction legal-jurisdiction michigan-law public-policy res-judicata sixth-circuit state-law
Key Terms:
ERISA DueProcess Securities Privacy
Latest Conference: 2019-11-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals violate settled Michigan law, Sixth Circuit and U.S. Supreme court decisions and/or make Michigan law?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED This case involves the violation of settled law and the improper creation of Michigan law. The Sixth Circuit held the case law it relied upon “displaced the general rule”, however those cases cited by the Sixth Circuit do not include the words “general rule”, and the Sixth Circuit did not explain what it meant by replacing a non-existent “general rule”. Michigan law holds that a contingency fee agreement does not operate to determine a discharged attorney's fee and that the court is required to analyze the illegal and public policy violations of a Michigan attorney. The Sixth Circuit’s decision violated Michigan law and Unlawfully created new law. The Sixth Circuit also made new Michigan contract law allowing Michigan residents to now create and enforce a contract beyond the written word of the contract and in direct contradiction to the admitted intent of the contract, in violation of Michigan law, Sixth Circuit and U.S. Supreme court decisions. THE QUESTION PRESENTED Is: Can the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals violate settled Michigan law, Sixth Circuit and U.S. Supreme court decisions and/or make Michigan law?

Docket Entries

2019-11-12
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2019.
2019-10-15
Waiver of right of respondents Barry Seifman, et al. to respond filed.
2019-08-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 12, 2019)

Attorneys

Barry Seifman, et al.
David William WarrenJoelson Rosenberg PLLC, Respondent
David William WarrenJoelson Rosenberg PLLC, Respondent
John Hankins, et al.
Lawrence John CooganLaw Office of Lawrence J. Coogan, PLLC, Petitioner
Lawrence John CooganLaw Office of Lawrence J. Coogan, PLLC, Petitioner