No. 19-479
Carol M. Kam v. John B. Peyton, Jr.
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: associate-judge judicial-authority judicial-misconduct probate-court probate-law rooker-feldman-doctrine state-court-jurisdiction state-court-rulings state-law void-orders
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Does the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine apply to two Void [not voidable but, void] "proposed " State Court Rulings produced by a former Associate Judge, who failed to acquire authority from the Judge of Record for the Dallas County Probate Court or the State Probate Court Judge, as required by State Law, to enter a Dallas County Probate Court and who failed to obtain a sign-off of his rulings from the Judge of Record within 30 days of their creation, as required by State Law?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine apply to two Void 'proposed' State Court Rulings?
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Rehearing DENIED.
2019-12-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-11-25
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2019-11-12
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2019.
2019-10-14
Waiver of right of respondent John Peyton to respond filed.
2019-10-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 12, 2019)
Attorneys
Carol Kam
Carol M. Kam — Petitioner
John Peyton
John J. Butrus — Dallas County District Attorney's Office, Respondent