Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
18-6410
================================================================
In The
Petitioner,
v.
CARLETHA R. GASTON,
Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
================================================================
i
QUESTION PRESENTED
LIST OF PARTIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
OPINIONS BELOW ............................................... 1
JURISDICTION ..................................................... 1
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................................. 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................ 2
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ............. 4
CONCLUSION ....................................................... 6
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A Order in the Supreme Court of
Missouri denying application
for transfer ................................ App. 1
APPENDIX B Opinion in Court of Appeals,
Western District, affirming the
trial Court’s judgment denial of
Declaratory Judgment Relief of
void judgment ........................... App. 3
APPENDIX C Judgment in the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri, deny-
ing motion to set aside DCSE’s
final Order as void due to de-
nial of Due Process, failure to
serve final Order and denial of
right to file timely Petition for
Judicial Review within 30 days
of mailing ................................ App. 10
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
Bates v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 464 S.W.3d 515 (Mo.
banc 2001) .................................................................6
Furlong Co. v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, 189
S.W.3d 249 (Mo. 2009) ...............................................4
J.C.W. ex rel. Webb v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249
(Mo. 2009) ..................................................................5
Johnson v. March, 376 S.W.3d 26 (Mo. App. 2012) ......... 4
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) ...........................5
La Presto v. La Presto, 285 S.W.2d 568 (Mo. 1955) ......... 5
McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U.S. 90 (1917) .......................5
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co.,
339 U.S. 306 (1950) ...................................................5
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877) .............................5
Taylor v. Taylor, 47 S.W.3d 377 (Mo. App. 2001) ..........6
Worley v. Worley, 19 S.W.3d 127 (Mo. 2000) .................5
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
U.S. Const. amend. XIV .................................... 1, 4, 5, 6
OPINIONS BELOW
The opinion of the highest state court to review the
merits appears at App. 1 to the petition and has been
designated for publication but is not yet reported.
The opinion of the Missouri appeals court appears
at App. 3 to the petition and is unpublished.
------------------------------------------------------------------
JURISDICTION
The date on which the highest state court decided
my case was September 25, 2018. A copy of that deci-
sion appears at App. B.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28
U.S.C. § 1257(a).
------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution states:
No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
2
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Missouri Supreme
Court’s decision should be summarily reversed and
this case be remanded for vacating of a void judgment
in light of due process violations committed by DCSE
and the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment of
the United States Constitution.
The petition for writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL E. MCKINZY, SR.
Originally filed: October 18, 2018
Re-filed: January 25, 2019