Head-to-head
Deborah Kollman, as Executor of the Estate of Stephanie A. Smith, Petitioner v. Mercy Health-Clermont Hospital, LLC, et al. vs. In Re Gerald Nelson, Petitioner vs. In Re Patrick Starzenski, Petitioner
Immigration cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-1352Deborah Kollman, as Executor of the Estate of Stephanie A. Smith, Petitioner v. Mercy Health-Clermont Hospital, LLC, et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-6193In Re Gerald Nelson, PetitionerBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-7296In Re Patrick Starzenski, PetitionerDismissedOctober Term 2025
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Immigration
- Why compared
- Reviewed Immigration tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- Deborah Kollman, as Executor of the Estate of Stephanie A. Smith, Petitioner v. Mercy Health-Clermont Hospital, LLC, et al.
- 1. When a case is timely filed in state court and then removed to federal court, does the tolling provision in § 1367(d) stop the clock on the limitations period for any state-law claims as of the time the plaintiff initially, and timely, filed the claim in state court? 2. Or, does the clock stop only once the claim is pending in federal court, even if removal to federal court is beyond the plaintiff’s control?
- In Re Gerald Nelson, Petitioner
- 1. According to the principles established in In re Winn, 213 U.S. 458 (1909), is a writ of mandamus the appropriate remedy for compelling a Circuit court to remand a case to state court when the removal was improper? 2. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule articulated in Caterpillar INC. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987), can an employer and union successfully remove a case to federal court if their only argument for federal jurisdiction is a defense of complete preemption under section 301 of the LMRA? 3. What are the jurisdictional boundaries between state and federal courts for section 301 labor cases, as defined by concurrent jurisdiction recognized in Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney 368 U.S. 502 (1962)? 4. Does intentional misrepresentation, false and misleading statements to establish original jurisdiction meet the high bar for proving fraud upon the court, or is it a lesser form of misconduct?
- In Re Patrick Starzenski, Petitioner
- 1. Why and if they are above to the law and have permission to commit illegal or even criminal commitments in this jurisdiction from government of the United States of America, and if this permission is to treat people inhumanly and seizing them and their properties and keeping in custody without any reasons and indefinitely? 2. How many time really court may proceed Habeas Corpus regarding unreasonable and unlawful detention in these circumstances? 3. If, handling great power over several states in behalf of United States of America, the U.S. Court of Appeals can just refuse to justice process and procedure Habeas Corpus in these circumstances, and in result of that, allow to indefinite, without limits, unreasonable, and even unauthorized detention? 4. Whether statute neither require to indicate “ immediate-custodian ” nor even define this term?
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.