James MacIel, Sr. v. Matthew Cates

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “failing to address [an argument] in [] 23 reply brief” forfeits the argument
• holding a party forfeited an argument raised in the opponent’s answering 17 brief by failing to address it in reply brief
• holding a party forfeited an argument raised in the opponent’s answering brief by failing 23 to address it in reply brief
• concluding in a habeas case involving in part a 2,000- foot residency restriction that under AEDPA’s deferential standard of review it was nonpunitive, citing a similar restriction held to be regulatory in Doe v. Miller, 405 F.3d 700, 718–23 (8th Cir. 2005)
• including 24-hour electronic monitoring among conditions that could be described as “non-custodial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).