United States of America Ex Rel. Joel D. Joseph, and Joel D. Joseph v. Howard W. Cannon

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[t]he requirement of particularly does not abrogate Rule 8, and it should be harmonized with the general directives ... of Rule 8 ... ”
• holding that “[t]he requirement of particularity does not abrogate Rule 8, and it should be harmonized with the general directives . . . of Rule 8 . . . .”
• dismissing suit against a United States Senator as vague and failing to satisfy Rule 9(b
• identifying one of the purposes of the specificity requirement as “guarantee[ing] [the] defendant[] sufficient information to allow for preparation of a response” since “‘fraud’ encompasses a wide variety of activities”
• “The usual method for dealing with a nebulous complaint … is either to grant leave to amend or to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.”
• plaintiffs must provide “all defendants sufficient information to allow for preparation of a response.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).