No. 18-605
Mitchell J. Stein v. California
Response Waived
Experienced Counsel
Tags: civil-litigation civil-procedure constitutional-law declaratory-relief due-process due-process-clause harmless-error judicial-review prejudice structural-error
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2019-01-04
Question Presented (from Petition)
When a fundamental structural error results in
an invalid judgment against a civil litigant in violation of the Due Process Clause, is the error per se
prejudicial, as held by seven state courts of last resort
and two circuits, or must the litigant prove prejudice,
as held by five state high courts and two circuits?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When a fundamental structural error results in an invalid judgment against a civil litigant in violation of the Due Process Clause, is the error per se prejudicial, as held by seven state courts of last resort and two circuits, or must the litigant prove prejudice, as held by five state high courts and two circuits?
Docket Entries
2019-01-07
Petition DENIED.
2018-11-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-11-20
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2018-11-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 10, 2018)
Attorneys
California
Nicklas Arnold Akers — California Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Mitchell Stein
Richard C. Klugh Jr. — Petitioner