No. 19-8869
Robert Wade v. Monroe County District Attorney, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review civil-procedure civil-rights civil-rights-action District-Attorney's-Office-for-the-Third-Judicial- district-court-order due-process rooker-feldman-doctrine section-1983 Skinner-v-Switzer standing supreme-court-precedent
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess HabeasCorpus Privacy Jurisdiction JusticiabilityDoctri
SocialSecurity DueProcess HabeasCorpus Privacy Jurisdiction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was properly applied
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. WHETHER THE AMENDED ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS VACATING THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND DISMISSING THE 1983 ACTION BASED ON THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE CONFLICTS WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: SKINNER V. SWITZER, 562 U.S. 521 (2011) AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT V. OSBORNE, 557 : U.S. 52 (2009)?
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-08-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-20
Waiver of right of respondent E. David Christine to respond filed.
2020-06-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 30, 2020)
Attorneys
E. David Christine
Gerard Joseph Geiger — Newman, Williams, et al., Respondent
Robert Wade
Cheryl J. Sturm — Attorney at Law, Petitioner