Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Carol Pulliam v. University of Southern California
Paid petition · Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, No. B304749 · judgment August 23, 2022
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Do state court trial judges, court of appeal justices and supreme court justices “war against the (United States) Constitution” by denying state litigants Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional due process when each and/or all these judicial officers did not disclose and recuse themselves as required by state law, state Code of Judicial Ethics and/or other state or federal requirements when he/she:
-
currently receives or in the past received payments from: (a) the county currently paying or paid the Respondent for Respondent’s services; and/or (b) an entity jointly offering services with Respondent; (c) a partner, representative and/or affiliate of the Respondent; and/or (d) another county; and/or
-
as a lawyer who personally represented and/or his/her firm represented the county making the payments to the judges in cases involving: (a) the legality and/or the constitutionality of the payments; and (b) subsequent statutes relating to the payments.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Richard Isaac Fine
Richard I Fine
For respondent
Lacey L. Estudillo
Horvitz & Levy, LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Proceedings
- Jun 12 2023Rehearing DENIED.
- May 23 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/8/2023.
- May 12 2023Petition for Rehearing filed.
- Apr 17 2023Petition DENIED.
- Mar 22 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2023.
- Mar 09 2023Waiver of right of respondent University of Southern California to respond filed.
- Feb 14 2023Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 20, 2023)