Collins v. Arctic Builders

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that superior court had duty to inform pro se litigant of defect in notice of appeal and to provide opportunity to remedy
• holding that a superior court’s failure to inform a pro se litigant of the specific defects in his notice of appeal and to give him an opportunity to remedy those defects is “manifestly unreasonable and thus constitutes an abuse of discretion”
• noting that this court has distinguished Breck by \refus[ing] to . 'require judges to warn pro se litigants on aspects of procedure when the pro se litigant has failed to file at least a defective pleading'\
• \[Wle conclude that the superior court must inform a pro se litigant of the specific defects in his notice of appeal and give him an opportunity to remedy those defects.\
• “[W]e conclude that the superior court must inform a pro se litigant of the specific defects in his notice of appeal (continued...
• court must inform pro se litigants of specific defects in their pleadings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).