Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Peter Chien, et al. v. Scott E. Jarrett, et al.
Paid petition · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, No. Yor-22-259 · judgment March 2, 2023
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Does the filing of an entry of appearance within 21 days of opening the mail containing a court order missing a triggering date for the 21 day deadline to file an entry of appearance still constitute compliance with that order? The question of whether a court order without a triggering date for a deadline for compliance violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is one of federal law. The issue is important because it affects the enforceability of court orders and the rights of parties to know when a court order will take effect. The United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review this question because it is a question of federal law. The Court has previously held that the due process clause applies to state court proceedings, and the issue of whether a court order without a triggering date violates the due process clause is one that has not been definitively resolved by the Court. For these reasons, the United States Supreme Court should grant certiorari to review the question of whether a court order lacking a triggering date violates the due process clause. -1 -
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Peter Chien
For respondent
John J. Wall III
Monaghan Leahy. LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Proceedings
- Nov 20 2023Rehearing DENIED.
- Nov 01 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/17/2023.
- Oct 27 2023Petition for Rehearing filed.
- Oct 02 2023Petition DENIED.
- Aug 12 2023Reply of petitioners Peter Chien, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 09 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
- Jul 26 2023Brief of respondents Scott E. Jarrett, et al. in opposition filed.
- Jun 21 2023Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 28, 2023)