No. 20-1421

Paul Ballerstein, et ux. v. Penelope McHatten, et al.

Lower Court: Maine
Docketed: 2021-04-09
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights court-discretion due-process judicial-bias property property-rights standing statutory-interpretation statutory-requirements
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2021-04-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can a civil court arbitrarily override clearly written statutory requirements?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In this civil case, Maine courts deprived the defendants of their property, after concluding that the facts “foreclose” doing so. The trial court found that actually meeting the statutory requirements was a “factual impossibility”, but then it invoked that selfsame statute against them anyway. Can a civil court arbitrarily override clearly written statutory requirements? The court purposefully ruled contrary to the facts on record, in violation of statutory requirements, in order to penalize one party in favor of the other. Does demonstrated judicial bias/prejudice prove insufficient Due Process, and thereby render its entire judgment invalid? i

Docket Entries

2021-05-03
Petition DENIED.
2021-04-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021.
2021-04-12
Waiver of right of respondents Penelope McHatten, et al. to respond filed.
2021-04-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 10, 2021)

Attorneys

Paul Ballerstein, et ux.
Paul Ballerstein — Petitioner
Penelope McHatten, et al.
Luke M. RossignolBemis and Rossignol, LLC, Respondent