No. 21-317

Dean Koch v. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, et al.

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-08-31
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 11th-amendment 42-usc-1983 bostock-v-clayton-county civil-rights-act civil-rights-act-of-1871 constitutional-interpretation eleventh-amendment judicial-doctrine qualified-immunity statutory-construction
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity FirstAmendment
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Decision of the Sixth Circuit herein violate the canons of statutory construction

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; __ | — — : 1. Does the Decision of the Sixth Circuit herein violate the canons of statutory ; ; construction especially those enunciated in Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17; 1618. Argued October 8, 2019—Decided June 15, 2020,__._ U.S. __? . 2. Does the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibit suits against : : ——~Siate entities and individuals or does : it merely limit the remedies for such actions? | ; 3. Is qualified immunity constitutional? ? . 4. Does the judicially-created doctrine of qualified immunity run contrary to : statute and the intent of the legislature under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (The : Ku Klux Klan Act), 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the XI, XIV and XV Amendments to : : the U.S. Constitution? : . i STATEMENT OF

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-09-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-09-03
Waiver of right of respondent OH Dept. of Natural Resources, et al. to respond filed.
2021-08-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 30, 2021)

Attorneys

Dean Koch
Dean A. Koch — Petitioner
Dean A. Koch — Petitioner
OH Dept. of Natural Resources, et al.
Benjamin Michael FlowersOhio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent
Benjamin Michael FlowersOhio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent