Skip to main content
· 7/11/2000

Mitchell v. City of Moore

Citations

  • 218 F.3d 1190
  • 47 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 673
  • 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 4220
  • 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15964

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the Court is “not obligated to comb the record in order to make [Plaintiffs’] arguments for [them].”
  • noting that the plaintiff's \conclusory statement\ was \woefully inadequate to survive a summary judgment motion\
  • explaining that district courts aren’t “obligated to comb the record to make [a party’s] arguments for him”
  • explaining that the court is “not obligated to comb the record in order to make [plaintiff’s] arguments for [her]”
  • stating that a court is “not obligated to comb the record in order to make [a party’s] arguments for him”
  • noting that district courts are “not obligated to comb the record in order to make [a party’s] arguments for him”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Tacha, Baldock, Brorby

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.