No. 23-7534

Charles Feick v. The Brutsche Family Revocable Trust, et al.

Lower Court: Washington
Docketed: 2024-05-22
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: ability-to-pay constitutional-rights due-process eighth-amendment equal-protection excessive-fines fourteenth-amendment indigent-rights
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-01-10 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require the state to demonstrate a rational basis for treating similarly situated indigent persons differently and provide due process protections, and whether the Eighth Amendment prevents excessive bail and fines and requires an assessment of the ability to pay

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case presents a crucial opportunity for the Supreme Court to protect indigent citizens and set a nationwide precedent for the protection of appeal rights for indigent civil litigants. The Constitutional issues involved are: (1) whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the state to demonstrate a rational basis for treating similarly situated persons differently (2) whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment , requires due process for indigent persons and (3) whether the Eighth Amendment prevents excessive bail and fines and requires an assessment of the ability to pay.

Docket Entries

2025-01-13
Rehearing DENIED.
2024-12-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025.
2024-11-01
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-07-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-05-28
Waiver of right of respondents Brutsche Family Revocable Trust, the Estate of Pat Brutsche, and Michael Brutsche to respond filed.
2024-05-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 21, 2024)

Attorneys

Brutsche Family Revocable Trust, the Estate of Pat Brutsche, and Michael Brutsche
Brian William EslerMiller Nash LLP, Respondent
Brian William EslerMiller Nash LLP, Respondent
Charles Feick
Charles Feick — Petitioner
Charles Feick — Petitioner