Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Robert V. Bolinske v. Supreme Court of North Dakota, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 19-2516 · judgment August 4, 2020
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
-
Did the District Court and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals err in refusing to allow Appellant Bolinske the right to serve and file his proposed Amended Complaint?
-
Did the lower courts err in granting, and refusing to reverse Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss?
-
Do exceptions to the Rooker - Feldman and Younger abstention doctrines here exist, accepting all of the allegations set forth in Bolinske’s proposed Amended Complaint as true?
-
Have Bolinske’s First Amendment and Due Process rights been violated by Defendants? 5,. Should the Rooker, Feldman and Younger decisions be re-evaluated and clarified to enable both Bolinske and Defendants to understand their rights and obligations thereunder?
-
Is North Dakota’s entire Attorney Disciplinary System unconstitutional in that it allows the taking of an attorney’s property without (1) Due Process of law and
-
without the protections afforded by the operation of the Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable law?
-
Should Defendants be enjoined from further disciplinary action under their
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Robert V. Bolinske
For respondent
Matthew Arnold Sagsveen
North Dakota Office of Attorney General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Mar 08 2021Petition DENIED.
- Feb 17 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/5/2021.
- Feb 09 2021Waiver of right of respondent Supreme Court of ND, et al. to respond filed.
- Jan 04 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 1, 2021)