Moore v. Motz

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “[e]ven a pro se plaintiff’s inferences . . . need not be accepted” if they “are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint”
• noting that \[e]ven a pro se plaintiff's inferences ... need not be accepted\ if they \are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint\ (citation omitted)
• noting that “[e]ven a pro se plaintiffs inferences .,. need not be accepted” if they “are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• noting that “[e]ven a pro se plaintiff’s inferences . . . need not be accepted” if they “are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint” (citation omitted)
• noting that “a pro se plaintiff’s inferences . . . need not be accepted” if they “are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• noting that \[e]ven a pro se plaintiff's inferences ... need not be accepted\ if they \are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint\ (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).