A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from this Court and lower state courts, along with constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether or not a trial by jury in suits at common law must be preserved when the equity value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars.

The lower state courts disagree stating that the summary judgment procedure in a civil case does not violate the constitutional right to a trial by jury citing a long-held case law in California, Scheidingv. Dinwiddie Constr. Co., (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 70. See Appendix A, Page 10.

Does case law supersede constitutional provisions in the courts of law? In this Case, a scheduled trial by jury was inappropriately vacated using a summary procedure to evict Petitioner from her house with an equity value which exceeds five hundred thousand dollars.

This Case uncovers a serious violation of the unalienable right of one of the people of the United States of America protected by the 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment and 7th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and coincidently affects every citizen of the United States of America and courts of law.

This conflict calls for the supervisory power of this Court to resolve the conflict between the state case law and the Constitution of the United States of America, which has not, but should be, settled by this Court.

Whether the Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury must be preserved in suits at common law where the equity value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars