No. 22-5238
M. Stephen Minix, Sr. v. Charity Stone, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure due-process ex-parte-proceeding judicial-immunity osborne-v standing state-case-law stump-v-sparkman void-ab-initio
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2022-10-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did Respondent Judge issue rulings on Respondent Stone's claim that were void ab initio and taken without judicial immunity under Stump v. Sparkman because the judge was expressly prohibited to consider such claim under Kentucky state case law in Osborne v.
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did Respondent Judge issue rulings on Respondent Stone’s | claim that were void ab initio and taken without judicial | immunity under Stump v. Sparkman because the judge was expressly prohibited to consider such claim under Kentucky state case law in Osborne v.
Docket Entries
2022-10-11
Petition DENIED.
2022-09-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/7/2022.
2022-08-15
Waiver of right of respondent John David Caudill to respond filed.
2022-07-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 31, 2022)
2022-06-21
Application (21A830) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until August 11, 2022.
2022-06-10
Application (21A830) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 12, 2022 to August 11, 2022, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.
Attorneys
Denise Porter
Brett Robert Nolan — Kentucky Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Douglas Ray Hall
Brett Robert Nolan — Kentucky Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Brett Robert Nolan — Kentucky Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
John David Caudill
Brett Robert Nolan — Kentucky Office of the Attorney General, Respondent