No. 20-1023
Jean Coulter v. Philip A. Ignelzi, et al.
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: civil-procedure due-process equal-protection judicial-bias mandamus rule-233.1 rule-making-authority standing vagueness
Latest Conference:
2021-05-27
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. a. Is Pa. R.C.P. Rule 233.1 Unconstitutional?
b. Is Pa. R.C.P. Rule 233.1 Unconstitutionally Vague?
3. Were Coulter's Due Process Rights violated?
4. Has pervasive bias (favoring "Justice System" defendants) resulted in the violation of Due Process in the Pennsylvania courts system-wide?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is Pa. R.C.P. Rule 233.1 Unconstitutional?
Docket Entries
2021-06-01
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-05-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/27/2021.
2021-04-21
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2021-03-29
Petition DENIED.
2021-03-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.
2021-02-15
Waiver of right of respondents Jamie L. Lenzi; Cipriani & Werner, P.C. to respond filed.
2021-02-11
Waiver of right of respondents Philip A. Ignelzi, et al. to respond filed.
2021-02-09
Waiver of right of respondent Tony Bagnato to respond filed.
2020-12-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 1, 2021)
Attorneys
Jamie L. Lenzi; Cipriani & Werner, P.C.
Jennifer M. Swistak — Cipriani Werner, P.C., Respondent
Jean Coulter
Jean Coulter — Petitioner
Philip A. Ignelzi, et al.
Michael Daley — Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Respondent
Tony Bagnato
Lee M. Dellecker — Allegheny County Law Dept., Respondent