C. Gilmore v. C. Lockard

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that in the context of inmate litigation, the state 28 attorney general must at the very least identify the decedent’s proper successor or 1 representative
• concluding that “we require, at a minimum, identification of [the deceased defendant]s successor or personal representative by [d]efendants, given that they were much better suited than [the plaintiff] to identify the proper parties.”
• holding that it 8 || was error to place the burden on a pro se prisoner plaintiff to identify decedent’s successor 9 || or personal representative and that Rule 25(a)’s 90-day requirement for substitution was 10 || not triggered
• holding suggesting party must serve suggestion of death on nonparty successor to trigger ninety-day period
• stating that the purpose of Rule 25(a) is 11 “to preserve parties’ rights and causes of action when a party dies”
• showing of good cause or extraordinary 13 circumstances not necessary to withdraw magistrate judge consent 14 before all parties have consented

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Ln Management, LLC Series 5664 v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank
  Ninth Circuit· 2020-04-24· cited 58×
• Malcolm Muhammad v. L. Fleming
  Fourth Circuit· 2022-03-16· cited 7×

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co.
  Supreme Court· 1987-12-08· cited 1,419×
• Brian Barlow v. George Ground, Officer 9129 L.O. Oberlies, Officer 1706 A. Tucker, Officer 9363 Ray Shay, Officer 3269
  Ninth Circuit· 1994-11-03· cited 221×
• United States v. Pablo Mayans
  Ninth Circuit· 1994-02-09· cited 200×
• Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc., a Corporation, Plaintiff- Cross-Appellee v. Instromedix, Inc., a Corporation, Cross-Appellant
  Ninth Circuit· 1984-02-16· cited 193×
• Fariss v. Lynchburg Foundry
  Fourth Circuit· 1985-08-05· cited 140×
• Bobby Marion Dixon v. Eddie Ylst
  Ninth Circuit· 1993-04-01· cited 129×
• Bill Ransom v. Frances Hugh Brennan, of the Estate of William J. Brennan,deceased
  Fifth Circuit· 1971-01-11· cited 126×
• Denis Rende v. Alfred S. Kay
  D.C. Circuit· 1969-06-04· cited 113×
• Estate of Manuel Diaz v. City of Anaheim
  Ninth Circuit· 2016-08-24· cited 102×
• Robert E. Kennedy v. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, State of California
  Ninth Circuit· 2004-08-18· cited 76×
• United States v. Todd David Neville
  Ninth Circuit· 1993-01-14· cited 74×
• Jose Flores v. City of Westminster
  Ninth Circuit· 2017-10-11· cited 74×
• Mary Carter v. Sea Land Services, Inc.
  Fifth Circuit· 1987-04-30· cited 64×
• Shasaku Mizukami, Gosaku Mizukami v. Peter R. Buras, Connecticut Fire Insurance Co.
  Fifth Circuit· 1969-12-29· cited 51×
• In Re Connaway as Receiver of the Moscow National Bank
  Supreme Court· 1900-05-14· cited 46×
• United States v. Lance H. Mortensen
  Ninth Circuit· 1988-11-04· cited 42×
• Unicorn Tales, Inc. v. Banerjee
  Second Circuit· 1998-03-02· cited 31×
• Irwin v. Mascott
  Ninth Circuit· 2004-06-04· cited 31×
• GOLDLAWR, INCORPORATED v. Shubert
  S.D. New York· 1959-08-10· cited 18×
• Bertsch v. Canterbury
  S.D. California· 1955-07-29· cited 6×