No. 20-336

Richard J. Kelly, et ux. v. Marjory Motiaytis

Lower Court: Illinois
Docketed: 2020-09-14
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 14th-amendment 5th-amendment civil-rights constitutional-law due-process legal-vagueness municipal-ordinance vagueness
Latest Conference: 2020-11-06
Question Presented (from Petition)

Just laws and constitutional laws are the foundation of our legal system. We, the people, DEPEND on the United States Supreme Court for justice.

(1) Whether 65 ILCS 5/11-13-15 is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the due process clauses of the 14th and 5th Amendments of the United States Constitution?

Whether 65 ILCS 5/11-13-15 is unconstitutionally vague and is, therefore, unconstitutional both on its face and as applied?

(2) Whether 65 ILCS 5/11-13-15 violates the due process clauses of the 14th and 5th Amendments of the United States Constitution?

Whether 65 ILCS 5/11-13-15 violates the due process clause of the 14th and 5th Amendments of the United States Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional both on its face and as applied?

(3) Whether 65 ILCS 5/11-13-15 violates the due process clause of the 14th and 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution when it is necessary to refer to and to utilize another statute in order to determine the "prohibited conduct"?

Whether 65 ILCS 5/11-13-15 is unconstitutionally vague when it is necessary to refer to and to utilize another statute in order to determine the "prohibited conduct" and is, therefore, unconstitutional both on its face and as applied?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether 65 ILCS 5/11-13-15 is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the due process clauses of the 14th and 5 Amendments of the United States Constitution?

Docket Entries

2020-11-09
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.
2020-10-07
Waiver of right of respondent Marjory Motiaytis to respond filed.
2020-09-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 14, 2020)

Attorneys

Marjory Motiaytis
Amy Lynn LonerganFinn & Finn, Ltd, Respondent
Richard Kelly, et al.
Richard J. Kelly — Petitioner