No. 20-5311
Richard Hollihan, Jr. v. Pennsylvania
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 14th-amendment constitutional-violation due-process equal-protection extraordinary-relief fourteenth-amendment legal-precedent precedent precedential-decision state-court-jurisdiction supreme-court
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violate the
14th Amendment to the United States Constitution
when it Denied Petitioner's Application For
Extraordinary Relief that conflicts with its own
Precedential Decision?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violate the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution when it Denied Petitioner's Application For Extraordinary Relief that conflicts with its own Precedential Decision?
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
2020-08-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-08-17
Waiver of right of respondent Pennsylvania to respond filed.
2020-07-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 9, 2020)
Attorneys
Pennsylvania
Karen T. Edwards — Office of the District Attorney, Respondent
Richard Hollihan
Richard Hollihan — Petitioner