Tenth Circuit· 12/28/2004

Hill v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

Citations

393 F.3d 1111
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 26981
2004 WL 2988554

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that “the district court’s failure to address [a party’s] arguments may be properly construed as an implicit denial of those arguments”
holding that the district court's failure to address Rule 72(a) objections could be properly construed as an implicit denial of those arguments
holding that district court retains discretion to appoint counsel for indigent prisoners in civil cases and that burden is on applicant to show that appointment is warranted
concluding that “the Colorado review statute is applicable to professional negligence claims brought against the United States under the FTCA” and dismissing the plaintiff’s FTCA claim for failure to file a certificate of review
holding that United States was entitled to assert state-law statutory defense available to similarly situated private parties because to hold otherwise would be to “render it liable … where private parties would not be”
noting that the Colorado \certificate of review requirement applies whether or not the plaintiff is represented by counsel\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lucero, McKAY, Porfilio

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

48 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.