Howard v. Clark

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that there existed a plausible inference that a doctor had refused to treat a patient because she believed he had attacked a female officer
• holding that a pro se plaintiff’s “complaint and his opposition brief” together state a claim for relief
• holding that a court has no obligation to “credit conclusory allegations or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff
• noting that a court need not accept “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions couched as factual . . . allegations”
• explaining that leave to amend a complaint may be denied when amendment would be futile

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).