Scher v. Weeks

How courts have described this case

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

• barring litigation of § 1983 claims that were or could have been litigated in state proceeding
• applying res judicata “without regard” to whether state court held a “[full evidentiary] hearing” or plaintiff was in a “defensive posture” in the prior proceeding
• court’s recusal generally not required where conflicted law clerk is not working on the case
• “The conclusion that a law clerk ‘had to be’ influenced by the actions of a coworker is compelled by neither logic nor the record before us. Furthermore, the facts on the record do not justify further inquiry. This claim is also frivolous.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).