No. 20-1540
Victor J. Edney v. Eondra Lamone Hines, et al.
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights court-jurisdiction default-judgment government-liability governmental-immunity legal-action motion-for-default qualified-immunity sovereign-immunity
Key Terms:
FirstAmendment
FirstAmendment
Latest Conference:
2021-09-27
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Why should the petitioners' motion of frivolous-claims be granted by this court?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Why should the petitioners’ motion of frivolous claims be granted by this court? 2. Why did the petitioner not negate the respondents qualified immunity question in the United States Court of Appeals reply brief? 3. Why should the petitioner be granted the wavier of governmental immunity: permission to sue? A. Why should sovereign immunity not stay intact or why should the respondents not get qualified immunity? 5. Why the petitioners’ motion of default judgment should be granted? 1 ALIST OF ALL
Docket Entries
2021-10-04
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-09-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-07-23
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2021-06-28
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.
2021-05-28
Waiver of right of respondents Respondent Officer Jordan Wenkman, Respondent Office Bobby King, Respondent Sergeant David Conley, Respondent Sergeant Keith Vaughan to respond filed.
2021-02-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 4, 2021)
Attorneys
Respondent Officer Jordan Wenkman, Respondent Office Bobby King, Respondent Sergeant David Conley, Respondent Sergeant Keith Vaughan
Roy L. Barrett — Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee, Respondent
Roy L. Barrett — Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee, Respondent