Due process and court deadlines
Michelet Michael Smith v. Reynolds
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Michael Smith asks whether Arizona could treat his Fourteenth Amendment due-process objection as waived for not seeking permission to file an extra brief.
- What's at stake
- The Supreme Court has not ruled on Smith’s objection, so its effect on his Arizona civil case remains unresolved.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
He says no deadline was set and the trial court ruled about two days after the reply; the petition is set for a conference, which is not a decision to hear it.
The case comes from the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One.
Question presented
Whether a State may treat a Fourteenth Amendment due-process objection as waived because a civil litigant did not seek leave to file an additional memorandum not provided for by the governing briefing rule, where neither the rule nor the court identified a deadline for that request and the trial court decided the dispositive motion approximately two days after the movant’s reply?
What happens next
The petition was distributed for the Court’s Nov. 13, 2026 conference. The Court must decide whether to hear it; the conference distribution is not a grant, and no argument or decision date is set.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Case data updated: documents, description, proceeding_type
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.