Young v. Barrow

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that pro se litigants untrained in the law are given a certain amount of leeway
• recognizing that “courts . . . should give effect to the substance, rather than the form or 5 terminology, of a pro se litigant’s papers”
• explaining that in reviewing a trial court’s decision on a Rule 12.03 motion for judgment on the pleadings, as in reviewing a Rule 12.02(6
• explaining that while this Court cannot create or argue defenses on a pro se party’s behalf, we review their filings for substance rather than form
• holding litigant cannot collaterally attack decisions from earlier case when party could have filed timely appeal
• stating that courts should “give effect to the substance, rather than the form or terminology” of a pro se motion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).