Rodriguez v. Elo

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the law is “replete with instances which firmly establish that ignorance of the law, despite a litigant’s pro se status, is no excuse” for failure to follow legal requirements
• explaining that the law is “replete with instances which firmly establish that ignorance of the law, despite a litigant’s pro se status, is no excuse” for failure to follow legal requirements
• finding that the law is “replete with instances which firmly establish that ignorance of the law, despite a litigant’s pro se status, is no excuse” for failure to follow legal requirements
• observing that the law is “replete with instances which firmly establish that ignorance of the law, despite a litigant’s pro se status, is no excuse” for failure to follow legal requirements
• noting that the law is “replete with instances which firmly establish that ignorance of the law, despite a litigant’s pro se status, is not excuse” for failure to file legal requirements such as filing deadlines
• stating that the law is “replete with instances which firmly establish that 3 None of the other three potential starting points for the limitations period set forth in the statute are applicable here. See § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).