No. 22-72
Jerald Hammann v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Response Waived
Tags: appellate-review civil-procedure constitutional-rights dismissal-with-prejudice due-process judicial-procedure law-of-case law-of-the-case lower-court-jurisdiction rule-60.02
Latest Conference:
2022-09-28
Question Presented (from Petition)
The first question presented is whether a lower
court is obligated to abide by the law of the case even
if it claims the appellate court erred.
The second question presented is whether a
dismissal with prejudice jurisdictionally precludes a
district court from hearing a motion to vacate
judgment filed pursuant to Rule 60.02.
The third question presented is whether the
appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal.
The fourth question presented is whether existing
judicial procedures are adequate to protect individual
constitutional rights.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a lower court is obligated to abide by the law of the case even if it claims the appellate court erred
Docket Entries
2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-08-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-07-29
Waiver of right of respondent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to respond filed.
2021-09-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 25, 2022)
Attorneys
Jerald Hammann
Jerald A. Hammann — Petitioner
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Kristina H. Kaluza — Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Respondent