Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
E. M. M., et al. v. Douglas County, Colorado, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 19-1391
Before the decision, about 3.3× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition).
Questions presented
-
Whether a “bright line” rule requires post-deprivation notice and hearing for ex parte child seizures, as the FIFTH Circuit holds, or whether the right to notice and hearing is not clearly established, as the TENTH Circuit holds.
-
Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists for a federal claim using a plaintiff’s initials, as is held by the FIFTH Circuit and several federal district courts, or whether subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, as the TENTH Circuit holds.
-
Whether the right to appeal under 28 U.S. C. §1291 is contingent upon the filing of a Rule 59(e) motion in the district court, as the TENTH Circuit holds, or whether the opposite is correct, as the FIFTH Circuit holds.
-
Whether sua sponte dismissal requires no prior notice to the parties, as the TENTH Circuit holds, or whether notice is required prior to dismissal, as the FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, ELEVENTH and D.C. Circuits hold.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Rebecca R. Messall
Messall Law Firm, LLC
For respondent
Dawn L. Johnson
Douglas County Attorney's Office
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Oct 04 2021Petition DENIED.
- Jul 14 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
- Jul 02 2021Waiver of right of respondents Monica Gildner, Angela Webb, Tina Abney to respond filed.
- Jun 30 2021Waiver of right of respondent Lesa Adame; Carl Garza; Douglas County, Colorado to respond filed.
- Jun 04 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 8, 2021)