No. 20-336
Richard J. Kelly, et ux. v. Marjory Motiaytis
Response Waived
Tags: 14th-amendment 5th-amendment civil-rights constitutional-law due-process legal-vagueness municipal-ordinance vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment FourthAmendment Securities
DueProcess FifthAmendment FourthAmendment Securities
Latest Conference:
2020-11-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether 65 ILCS 5/11-13-15 is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the due process clauses of the 14th and 5 Amendments of the United States Constitution?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Justlaws and constitutional Jaws are the foundation of our legal system. We, the people, DEPEND on the United States Supreme Court for justice. () Whether 65 ILCS 5/11-13-15 is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the due process clauses of the 14th and 5 Amendments of the United States Constitution? (
Docket Entries
2020-11-09
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.
2020-10-07
Waiver of right of respondent Marjory Motiaytis to respond filed.
2020-09-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 14, 2020)
Attorneys
Marjory Motiaytis
Amy Lynn Lonergan — Finn & Finn, Ltd, Respondent
Amy Lynn Lonergan — Finn & Finn, Ltd, Respondent