No. 19-5534

James W. Royster v. Virginia

Lower Court: Virginia
Docketed: 2019-08-12
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: appeals civil-procedure civil-procedure-jurisdiction civil-rights due-process jurisdiction standing state-courts statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
Securities
Latest Conference: 2019-10-11
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Henrico County Circuit Court err in determining that it did not have jurisdiction to consider such motions for Virginia Supreme Court Rule 5:15 and did the Virginia Supreme Court err in affirming such opinions?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED lL. fetttioner filed tun (29 Motfans with the, Hencice County Viedsinia Circurt Court fer Nirginia Cede Sectinls 8 0)]428) and 19. 2-227, ufssl the Around: Vord ab intits dud ¢mentt tor — Waat of Surisdichoxf. The Civeurt lourt den ted bots motistls via Sua SPontei for the eG Son #t did not have Sucisdictio al ty Conlsidemhe. Motions Per Vics inia Sure Court Rule \ele Petitioner ablcaled the Circurt Court's decfetont te the Virainia SuPrene. Couct idwhitchs Het Couct affirmed the Circuct Couct’S decistonle Thus, this Case Presents the Lolleusing Cuestiscl2 Did the Hennco lout, Circatd Cou ct er ial detern avez kal thet 74 did nat have. SucfSclictio cl to Const del such motienS fer Viedinéa Subteme Court Kale Vai5 and Aid he Vitact| n ta Sulrem@ Court erriat affirming Such ofintions S

Docket Entries

2019-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
2019-07-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 11, 2019)

Attorneys

James W. Royster
James W. Royster — Petitioner
James W. Royster — Petitioner