Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Peggy A. Cianchette, et al. v. Tucker J. Cianchette, et al.
Paid petition · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, No. Cum-18-252 · judgment June 4, 2019
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
The United States Constitution guarantees due process of law. This requires a full, fair hearing that "embraces not only the right to present evidence, but also a reasonable opportunity to know the claims of the opposing party and to meet them." Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 18 (1938). In order to know the common law claims of an opposing party, litigants rely upon the precedent of the controlling jurisdiction. Occasionally, courts will overturn their established case law on appeal. This is their prerogative. The ordinary disposition following such a change is remand, as "it is also familiar appellate procedure that where the correctness of the lower court's decision depends upon a determination of fact which only a jury could make but which has not been made, the appellate court cannot take the place of the jury." SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 88 (1943) The question presented is: Whether, when an appellate court overturns its own controlling precedent, constitutional guarantees of due process require remand to the trial court for application of the newly-adopted rule of law.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
David Asher Swetnam-Burland
Brann & Isaacson
For respondent
TImothy H. Norton
Kelly, Remmel & Zimmerman
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Nov 04 2019Petition DENIED.
- Oct 09 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.
- Sep 27 2019Waiver of right of respondents Tucker J. Cianchette, et al. to respond filed.
- Sep 23 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 28, 2019)