Muhammad v. Oliver

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that when an affirmative defense, like claim preclusion, is “disclosed in the complaint, it provides a proper basis for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion”
• stating that it is “irrelevant” whether the plaintiff and the defendant have a contract under § 1981
• noting that if “‘the parties have agreed in terms or in effect that plaintiff may split his claim,’ . . . the bar of res judicata is lifted.”
• noting that “[n]o purpose would be served by compelling [a] defendant to file an answer rather than proceed by motion when the plaintiff has pleaded the answer himself’
• reiterating in dicta “that tortious interference with contract rights violates section 1981 when the motivation for the interference is racial”
• “[I]f there is an executed standstill agreement, one would expect an allegation to that effect. There is none. The complaint's silence is deafening.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).