O'QUINN v. Baca

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “parties ‘should not “expect [an appellate] court to peruse the record without the help of pinpoint citations”’” (quoting L.S.F. Transp., Inc. v. NLRB, 282 F.3d 972, 975 n.1 (7th Cir. 2002))
• concluding that appellate courts are under “no obligation” to undertake a search of the record “to determine whether (and, if so, how) iss ues had been raised and resolved in the trial courts”
• noting that we are “under no obligation” to scour the record to determine whether, and if so how, an issue was raised and resolved by the district court
• explaining that the purpose of the relevant Rule 28 provision is to relieve courts from the burden of having to search records to determine whether — and, if so, how — issues had been raised and resolved below
• explaining that the purpose of the relevant provision in Rule 28 is to relieve courts from the burden of having to search records to determine whether — and, if so, how — issues had been raised and resolved below
• explaining that the purpose of the relevant provision in Rule 28 is to relieve courts from the burden of having to search records to determine whether — and, if so, how — issues had been raised and resolved below

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).