1. Asa legal doctrine, the dual proceedings waiver is an important component of due process and
equal protection of the laws and is there to ward off any potential abuse of the "could-have-
litigated " theory under res judicata so that justice can be meted out evenhandedly not to subject
litigants to the arbitrary exercise of government power. Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153
U.S. 380, 386 (1894). The question presented is:
Did the Superior Court of Pennsylvania violate the due process and equal protection clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to recognize the dual proceedings waiver?

2. By refusing to recognize the dual proceedings waiver, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
virtually regulated petitioner 's right to contract and "legislated, " thereby violating his
immunity as a citizen from unreasonable government rules and regulations as protected by the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "[A]ny legislative deviation from a
contract 's obligations, however minute, or apparently immaterial, violates the
Constitution. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 84 (1823). All the commentators, and all the
adjudicated cases upon Constitutional Law agree[d] in th[is] fundamental
propositio[n]. " Winter v. Jones, 10 Ga. 190, 195 (1851). " Sveen v. Melin, 584 U.S.
(Dissent (Gorsuch)) (internal citations omitted). The question presented is:(2018) 7
Did the Superior Court of Pennsylvania violate the Contract Clause of the United States
Constitution by refusing to recognize the dual proceedings waiver?

Did the Superior Court of Pennsylvania violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to recognize the dual proceedings waiver?