Joe Nathan Price v. Digital Equipment Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no prejudice from pro se plaintiff’s noncompliance with Rule 28 where appellant had fully addressed the issue
• addressing merits of a noncompliant pro se brief when “well-settled law” applied, there were no “disputed facts,” and the appellee fully briefed the issue
• reversing and remanding summary judgment that turned on the wrong statute of limitations
• addressing issue even though the “only reference appellant makes to the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit as time barred is to assert that ‘this action is not time barred’”
• reversing and remanding summary judgment that turned on the wrong statute of limitations
• “Although we liberally construe the briefs of pro se appellants, we also require that arguments must be briefed to be preserved.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).