Mark A. Ball v. City of Chicago and Alfred S. Schultz, Individually and as Agent of the City of Chicago

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “there must be an explicit warning before the case is dismissed” for want of prosecution
• stating that the prospect of punishing an innocent client for an attorney’s missteps should “induce caution.”
• stating that a district judge may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute where “an unrepresented plaintiff changed his address and did not give the court his new one”
• distinguishing the \exacting standard\ of Rule 60(b) from the \more liberal standard\ of Rule 59(e)
• discussing deterrent and compensatory objectives of the law when reviewing dismissal of § 1983 action based on plaintiffs' failure to prosecute claims
• upholding dismissal after plaintiffs counsel failed to appear at four status hearings and then failed to comply with two discovery orders despite explicit warnings that noncompliance would result in dismissal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).