Robert Kadrowvach v. State of Indiana

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when a plaintiff did not direct the court to specific portions of the record, the court would consider only those arguments that were supported by appropriate citations
• holding that when plaintiff did not direct the court to a place in the record where it could find alleged errors, the court would only consider the arguments that were supported by appropriate citations
• explaining that a “cat’s paw” theory does not fit a case in which the ultimate decisionmaker makes an independent determination
• allowing a plaintiff's claim for prospective injunctive relief to proceed under the ADA where plaintiff’s complaint sought “Declaratory for reinstatement or front pay”
• court would only consider arguments that were supported by appropriate citations
• “We cannot tell whether the district court erred in ruling if the plaintiff does not direct us to a place in the record where we can find it, and so we consider only those contentions that include appropriate citations. Manning v. Jones, 875 F.3d 408, 410 (8th Cir. 2017).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).