Patrick J. Corcoran v. Mayor Samuel W. Yorty

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming dismissal without leave to 27 amend second complaint that was “so verbose, confused and redundant that its true 28 substance, if any [was] well disguised”
• affirming dismissal without leave to amend a second complaint that was “so verbose, confused and redundant that its true 4|| substance, if any, [was] well disguised”
• affirming dismissal 16 without leave to amend second Complaint that was “so verbose, confused and redundant 17 that its true substance, if any, [was] well disguised”
• affirming 20 dismissal without leave to amend a second complaint that was “so verbose, confused and 21 redundant that its true substance, if any [was] well disguised”
• affirming the district court’s dismissal of 20 21 4 This is true even for complaints filed pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972
• affirming dismissal, without leave to amend, of a second complaint that 8 was “so verbose, confused and redundant that its true substance, if any, [was] well 9 disguised”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).