Lamb v. Rizzo

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that, by improperly considering “material derived from documents outside the four corners” of the complaint, the trial court had converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment
• finding that, by improperly considering “material derived from documents outside the four corners” of the complaint, the trial court had converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment
• citing, inter alia, Logan v. District of Columbia, 447 F. Supp. 1328, 1332 (D.D.C. 1978)
• finding that Lamb had so destroyed his own public reputation that he was libel-proof and stating that “[t]he Kansas Supreme Court, in denying Lamb’s appeal, narrated the evidence of the sexual assault against Childs and Lamb’s continued violent attempts to flee justice”
• “A Rule 59(e) motion . . . should be granted only to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence.” (quoting Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997))
• “Mr. Lamb does not and cannot claim that the absence of notice prejudiced him. Mr. Lamb not only failed to object to the exhibits attached to Mr. Rizzo’s motion to dismiss, but Mr. Lamb also filed his own exhibits in response.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).