Caldwell v. Obama

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “the requisite finding of harassment or vexatiousness does not rest solely on some arbitrary threshold number of lawsuits filed but rather must also take account of the repetitiveness and nature of the claims”
• noting that “the requisite finding of harassment or vexatiousness does not rest solely on some arbitrary threshold number of lawsuits filed but rather must also take account of the repetitiveness and nature of the claims”
• noting that “the requisite finding of harassment or vexatiousness does not rest solely on some arbitrary threshold number of lawsuits filed but rather must also take account of the repetitiveness and nature of the claims”
• deeming first requirement satisfied where court document informed plaintiff of the possibility of injunction and plaintiff responded via argument in briefing
• entering a pre-filing injunction against the plaintiff after he filed at least five \meritless\ and \harassing\ suits over a period of about four years
• denying a pro se plaintiffs request to use a P.O. Box as his contact address because the plaintiff failed to “allege any specific source of endangerment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).