No. 24-830
Jenn-Ching Luo v. Owen J. Roberts School District, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: article-1-section-10 constitutional-issue due-process procedural-rules summons-deadline void-judgment
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2025-03-21
Question Presented (from Petition)
(1) Summons set forth that the defendant should respond to the summons "within 21 days after service of this summons." Under Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 or due process of law, can the Court issue a stay order to change the deadline for defendants to respond to the summons?
(2) When the judgment the Court below entered was void, is it necessary to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari for a valid judgment?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a court can issue a stay order to change a summons response deadline under Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 or due process of law, and whether a void judgment necessitates a writ of certiorari
Docket Entries
2025-03-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-02-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/21/2025.
2025-02-24
Waiver of Pennsylvania Department of Education of right to respond submitted.
2025-02-24
Waiver of right of respondent Pennsylvania Department of Education to respond filed.
2025-02-13
Waiver of right of respondents Sharon W. Montanye and Sweet Stevens Katz Williams, LLP to respond filed.
2025-02-13
Waiver of Owen J. Roberts School District, et al. of right to respond submitted.
2025-02-13
Waiver of right of respondents Owen J. Roberts School District, et al. to respond filed.
2025-01-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 6, 2025)
Attorneys
Jenn-Ching Luo
Jenn-Ching Luo — Petitioner
Owen J. Roberts School District, et al.
Karl A. Romberger Jr. — Sweet Stevens Katz & Williams LLP, Respondent
Pennsylvania Department of Education
Sharon W. Montanye and Sweet Stevens Katz Williams, LLP
John J. Hare — Marshall Dennehey, P.C. , Respondent