Peterson v. Ek

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a pro se litigant's briefing was adequate to preserve claims where we \could discern his legal arguments and [defendant] could reply to them\
• holding that a pro se litigant's claims were not waived because the legal arguments were clearly discernible from the briefing despite lack of citations
• holding pro se litigant waived issue on appeal even though he developed issue in reply brief
• noting that a self- represented litigant’s briefing need only be enough that the court can “discern his legal (continued...
• holding that appellee waived several claims by failing to cross-appeal
• stating that \[w]e judge a pro se litigant's performance by a less demanding standard\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).