Walters v. Buchanan

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the Court had no reason to believe that the case at issue strained the docket in any unusual way despite a two-year stall
• holding that sua sponte dismissal may be warranted “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the] rules or a court order”
• holding that sua sponte dismissal may be warranted “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the] rules or a court order”
• holding that sua sponte dismissal may be warranted “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the] rules or a court order.”
• holding that sua sponte dismissal may be warranted “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the] rules or a court order”
• holding that a district court’s dismissal was an abuse of discretion in part because plaintiff received inadequate notice and did not receive an opportunity to be heard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).