Second Circuit· 4/22/1999

Mcpherson v. Coombe

Citations

174 F.3d 276
43 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1184
1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 8003

How courts have described this case

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

ruling that a pro se litigant’s “awareness” of Rule 56, without more, does not establish that the litigant fully understood the consequences of summary judgment
holding that Courts read the pleadings, briefs, and opposition papers of pro se litigants “liberally and interpret them ‘to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.’”
stating that a pro se plaintiff's pleadings must be interpreted “to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
explaining that “a [d]istrict [c]ourt need not advise a pro se litigant as to the nature of summary judgment where an opposing party has already provided the litigant with the requisite notice” (italics omitted
a pro se party’s pleadings should be read liberally and interpreted “ ‘to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest’ ”
courts “read the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liberally and interpret them ‘to raise the strongest possible argu ments that they suggest’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

145 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Mcpherson v. Coombe

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.