Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Westlaw_Results_7-27-09_1251

Westlaw_Results_7-27-09_1251

Ratings:

5.0

(2)
|Views: 147 |Likes:
Petition for Writ of Certiorari before Judgment # 04-537 (Davidson v. Vivra Inc) posted with permission from Westlaw and Thomson Reuters.

Questions Presented For Review

1.Is Ariz. R. Civ. P., Rule 5.1 (A)(2) (B) and (C) flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional provisions?
2.Is the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as applied, repugnant to the U.S. Constitution?
3.Should the State court proceeding be enjoined on federal preemption grounds?
4.Did the U.S. District Court err when it dismissed CV-03-00110-FRZ and CV-03-00580-FRZ under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris?
Petition for Writ of Certiorari before Judgment # 04-537 (Davidson v. Vivra Inc) posted with permission from Westlaw and Thomson Reuters.

Questions Presented For Review

1.Is Ariz. R. Civ. P., Rule 5.1 (A)(2) (B) and (C) flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional provisions?
2.Is the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as applied, repugnant to the U.S. Constitution?
3.Should the State court proceeding be enjoined on federal preemption grounds?
4.Did the U.S. District Court err when it dismissed CV-03-00110-FRZ and CV-03-00580-FRZ under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris?

More info:

Published by: Robert Davidson, M.D., Ph.D. on Jul 27, 2009
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for DAVIDSON,ROBERT
Date/Time of Request: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:51 CentralClient Identifier: NO-CLIENT-IDDatabase: SCT-PETITIONCitation Text: 2004 WL 2368545Lines: 1200Documents: 1Images: 0The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,West and their affiliates.
 
For Opinion See125 S.Ct. 882Supreme Court of the United States.Robert M. DAVIDSON and Vanessa E. Komar, Petitioners,v.VIVRA INC, Michael J. Meehan, Quarles Brady Streich Lang LLP, et al, Respondents.No. 04-537.September 17, 2004.On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari As to Two Final Judgments of the United States District Court for the Districtof Arizona, Presently In The United States Court of Appeals Ninth CircuitPetition for Writ of Certiorari Before JudgementRobert M. Davidson, Petitioner Pro Se, 1009 N. 4th Street, Ste. B, Longview, TX 75601, 903-758-1900.
*i
PrefacePursuant to28 U.S.C. Section 1651,28 U.S.C. Section 1254,28 U.S.C. Section 1291,28 U.S.C. Section 2101(e),Fed.R.Civ. P. Rule 60 (b), and62, and Supreme Court Rules 10-14, and 23,
this petition seeks
reviewon writ of certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court of two final judgments of the U.S. District Court (District of Arizona)
. These judgments each involve identical or closely related questions, which draw in ques-tion the validity of Ariz. R. Civ. P., Rule 5.1 (A)(2)(B) and (C), on the ground of being repugnant to the United States Constitution.
These judgments by the U.S. District Court are presently on appeal (fully-briefed) to the 9thCircuit U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit Court of Appeals dockets 03-17342 and 04-15304).
There is a long-standing split of authority between the circuits regarding
the right to legal counsel in civil lawsuits
which urgesreview by this Court. Extraordinary circumstances exist which urge review by this Court. Unless this Court re-strains the State court proceeding and stays the federal court dismissals pending appeal, the Petitioners will suf-fer immediate and irreparable injury.Questions Presented For Review1.IsAriz. R. Civ. P., Rule 5.1 (A)(2) (B) and (C)
flagrantly and patently
violative of express constitutional pro-visions?2.Is the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, as applied, repugnant to the U.S. Constitution?3.Should the State court proceeding be enjoined on federal preemption grounds?4.Did the U.S. District Court err when it dismissed CV-03-00110-FRZ and CV-03-00580-FRZ under the absten-tion doctrine of 
Younger v. Harris
?
*II
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF ARI-2004 WL 2368545 (U.S.) Page 1© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
 
ZONAPetitionersROBERT M. DAVIDSON; andVANESSA E. KOMARRespondentsVIVRA INC;MICHAEL J. MEEHAN;QUARLES BRADY STREICH LANG LLP;VIVRA ASTHMA ALLERGY INC;VIVRAASTHMAALLERGY CARE AMERICA OF ARIZONA PC;MAGELLAN SPECIALTY HEALTH INC;ALLIED SPECIALTY CARE SERVICES INC;VIVRA HOLDINGS INC;TEXAS PACIFIC GROUP INC;GAMBRO HEALTHCARE INC;DIALYSIS HOLDINGS INC;HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES INC;ALBANY MEDICAL COLLEGE;JAY GROSSMAN;EUDICE GROSSMAN;THOMAS B. EDWARDS;GAYLE F. PETRILLO;CHARLES W. OTT;TIMOTHY G. WIGHTON;JOHN W. STRACK;2004 WL 2368545 (U.S.) Page 2© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->