Merchants Fire Insurance v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's 7 request to proceed IFP because he “failed to verify his poverty adequately”
• finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 1 verify his poverty adequately”
• finding that the district 16 court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 17 verify his poverty adequately”
• finding that the district 4 court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 5 verify his poverty adequately”
• finding that the district 18 court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 19 verify his poverty adequately”
• finding that the district 1 court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 2 verify his poverty adequately”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).