Richard A. LIVINGSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADIRONDACK BEVERAGE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a claim is frivolous if it “is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory”
• noting that courts may consider “whether the employer encouraged the employee to consult an attorney” when conducting the “totality of the circumstances” test
• explaining that dismissal is proper where complaint’s factual allegations are “the product of delusion or fantasy” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that § 1915(e) “mandate[s] that a district court ‘shall dismiss the case’ if the court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious” (emphasis in original)
• explaining that actions are frivolous when they rest on “factual contentions [that] are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• explaining that actions are frivolous when they rest on “factual contentions [that] are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).