Head-to-head
Judith L. Harvey, as Trustee of the David T. & Judith L. Harvey Trust, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David T. Harvey, Deceased, Petitioner v. City of Reno, Nevada, et al. vs. Samreen Farid Riaz, Petitioner v. Dental Board of California vs. Albert Glass, Petitioner v. Office of Chief Medical Examiner
Administrative Law cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-1254Judith L. Harvey, as Trustee of the David T. & Judith L. Harvey Trust, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David T. Harvey, Deceased, Petitioner v. City of Reno, Nevada, et al.Before argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1370Samreen Farid Riaz, Petitioner v. Dental Board of CaliforniaBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-7231Albert Glass, Petitioner v. Office of Chief Medical ExaminerBefore argumentOctober Term 2025
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Administrative Law
- Why compared
- Reviewed Administrative Law tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- Judith L. Harvey, as Trustee of the David T. & Judith L. Harvey Trust, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David T. Harvey, Deceased, Petitioner v. City of Reno, Nevada, et al.
- Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause requires just compensation when a state agency sells the only feasible access to private property, rendering it landlocked and valueless?
- Samreen Farid Riaz, Petitioner v. Dental Board of California
- 1. Did the Supreme court of California in error, abuse discretion and show bias denying Petition (S293171) on Dec 10 25 and left unresolved conflicted issue of law and factual issue? (including violation of 7th, 5th, 1st, 4th, 14th amendment amendments) ? (Opinion attached as Exhibit A) . 2. Did the Fifth District Court of Appeal err in Case No. F088523 (Sept. 25, 2025) by failing to apply the mandatory independent-judgment standard of review required when a fundamental vested right is at stake, and instead affirming on a deferential and incomplete record while disregarding material facts and deferring to agency and Attorney General arguments rather than independently evaluating the administrative record and the Tulare Superior Court rulings? (Exhibit B)? 3. Did the Tulare County Superior Court err or abuse its discretion on August 20, 2024, by denying Petitioner Samreen Riaz ’ s petition for writ of mandate in the case vcu303441? (Exhibit G)? 4. Did the Dental Board/DCA err or abuse its discretion by denying the August 16, 2023 reconsideration petition on August 21, 2023, and did revocation of petitioner ’ s professional license constitute a compensable taking under doctrine of eminent domain the 5th and 14th Amendments (Boom Co. v. Patterson, 1879) (Exhibit D)? 5. Did the Dental Board of California err and abuse its discretion by issuing a mental and physical examination order under Business and Professions Code §820 on June 24, 2022- the same day the petition was filed, Without prior service of the petition to ophthalmology patient prior to obtaining the order(Exhibit E )? ”? 6. Did the DBCA violate petitioner ’ s constitutional and patient rights by initiating a petition mental exam without serving the petition, for a reason that an ophthalmology patient for exercising First Amendment rights?
- Albert Glass, Petitioner v. Office of Chief Medical Examiner
- 1. Is the taking of a deceased person ’ s organs by a state agency without pre authorization of said person or next-of-kin a violation of the Constitutional and legal rights of said person and next'of kin? 2. Also, without authorization is it a violation of this person ’ s next-of-kin ’ s constitutional and legal rights to give organs to research facilities?
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.