The Supreme Court Document Preparation, Printing, and Filing Experts
The Supreme Court Press specializes in the affordable preparation, printing, and filing of legal briefs in compliance with the rules of the United States Supreme Court. Any document filed with the high court must meet precise requirements on formatting, binding, and delivery. A non-compliant document can be rejected by the court, damaging or ending your clients' pursuit of justice. Our expert team works hand in hand with you to interpret the Supreme Court rules and exquisitely prepare and print your documents, taking the worry out of the process for you.
The Supreme Court Press is a turnkey, full-service document preparation service for petitioner for Writs of Certiorari, Responses in Opposition, Amicus Curiae briefs, Merits Briefs, Replies to Exceptions, and all your other filings to the United States Supreme Court. While lovely printed documents will never win your case, improperly prepared documents can certainly lose one! We take care of all your Supreme Court printing needs to free up your time to craft the winning legal arguments.
The Petition of the Month for December 2014
The Supreme Court Press “Petition of the Month”TM for December 2014 is Dharma Agrawal v. Carlo Montemagno, John Bryan and the University of Cincinnati,. Supreme Court Dkt. No. 14-719, a workplace discrimination case arising out of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
1. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, can a complaint be dismissed for failing to plead a hostile environment theory of discrimination, simply because the words “hostile environment” were not used in the complaint, but where the complaint otherwise details the facts surrounding a work environment hostile to the petitioner?
2. Did the lower court issue an opinion in conflict with Burlington North. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (2006) when it held that the stripping away of petitioner’s job title, reduction of research space, and diversion of research funds, inter alia, did not constitute either the deprivation of a liberty or property interest or an adverse employment action? Furthermore, in reaching this conclusion, did the lower courts err by making factual inferences against the non-moving party, thus depriving petitioner of his right to a jury trial?
3. When the complaint alleges deliberately false disciplinary charges and suspension of professor’s pursuit of grants, disruption of professor’s research responsibilities and his physical wellbeing, and professor’s forced expenditure of over $70,000 for attorney’s fees in defending such charges, can a lower court’s determination of no substantive due process claim stand? (read more)