Skip to main content
· 2/19/1999

Coleman Vital v. Interfaith Medical Center and Local 1199

Citations

  • 168 F.3d 615
  • 42 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1255
  • 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2588
  • 75 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,889
  • 80 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 281
  • 1999 WL 76804

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the failure of the district court to apprise a pro se litigant of the consequences of failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment is a ground for reversal
  • holding that the failure of the district court to apprise a pro se litigant of the consequences of failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment is a ground for reversal
  • holding that the failure of the district court to apprise a pro se litigant of the consequences of failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment is a ground for reversal
  • holding that the failure of the district court to apprise a pro se litigant of the consequences of failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment is a ground for reversal
  • holding that the failure of the district court to apprise a pro se litigant of the consequences of failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment is a ground for reversal
  • holding that the failure of the district court to apprise a pro se litigant of the consequences of failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment is a ground for reversal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kearse, Straub, Sack

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.