No. 20-5296
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: civil-procedure conflict-of-interest due-process expert-reliability judicial-bias judicial-system legal-fees standing trial-reversal
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-11-13
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should a litigant be fully responsible for legal and expert fees of a reversed trial when experts were unreliable and no bad faith is shown?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Should a litigant reversing a trial still be fully responsible for all the legal and expert fees of an entirely reversed trial, when the experts were deemed . unreliable and when there is no record of the litigant’s bad faith before and during the reversed trial? 2. Is it constitutional to have a part of a state judicial system become a de facto for-profit business organization by creating its own parallel conflicting ‘legal’ rules specifically construed to directly benefit incestuously connected judges and lawyers? :
Docket Entries
2020-11-16
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020.
2020-10-21
Petitioner complied with order of October 13, 2020.
2020-10-13
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until November 3, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a).
2020-09-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.
2020-07-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 8, 2020)