Cases pin-citing Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio

Cases pin-citing Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio

Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio  ·  2012  ·  22 pinpoint citations from 22 cases, 20 distinct passages.

Maynard v. ELGA Credit Union  ·  2025-09-26  ·  N.D. California  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of 26 procedure that govern other litigants.”
Crockford v. Clark County Department of Family Services  ·  2025-08-08  ·  D. Nevada  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of 21 procedure that govern other litigants.”
Malheur Forest Fairness Coalition v. Iron Triangle, LLC  ·  2024-09-19  ·  D. Oregon  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“Direct proof of market power may be shown by evidence of restricted output and supracompetitive prices.”
Lenoir v. Albertsons, LLC  ·  2024-08-15  ·  D. Nevada  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that 17 govern other litigants”
Sherman v. Kruse  ·  2024-08-09  ·  W.D. Washington  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint and renders 7 it without legal effect”
(PC) Shepard v. Gannon  ·  2024-02-26  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“Prosecutors performing their official prosecutorial functions are entitled 7 || to absolute immunity against constitutional torts.”
(PS) Sn v. Girish  ·  2023-01-09  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“It is the law of this circuit that a plaintiff waives all claims alleged in a 5 dismissed complaint which are not realleged in an amended complaint.”
(PS)Nelson-Rogers v. Allred  ·  2022-02-09  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“It is the law of this circuit that a plaintiff waives all claims alleged in a 10 dismissed complaint which are not realleged in an amended complaint.”
Allen v. Diaz  ·  2021-11-17  ·  S.D. California  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“[A]n amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and 8 renders it without legal effect.”
Crouthamel v. Walla Walla Public Schools  ·  2021-04-22  ·  E.D. Washington  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“Conspiracy is not itself a constitutional tort under § 1983. . . . 16 It does not enlarge the nature of the claims asserted by the plaintiff, as there must 17 always be an underlying constitutional violation.”
Anderson v. California Department of Correction  ·  2021-03-19  ·  N.D. California  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“Pro se litigants must follow the same 4 || rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”
Beom Su Lee v. Rosen Music Studio  ·  2019-08-27  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”
United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Emp'rs Health & Welfare Fund v. Teikoku Pharma United States  ·  2017-11-03  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
"A high cross elasticity of demand indicates that products are close substitutes, and should probably be treated as part of the same market. A low or zero cross elasticity of demand is evidence that products do not compete in the same relevant market."
In re: Halina Wojcik  ·  2016-11-30  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure 23 that govern other litigants.”
Strickland v. U.S. Trustee (In Re Wojcik)  ·  2016-11-30  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”
John Baker v. Thomas Bell  ·  2016-08-24  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”
Kristin Loupe v. Robin O'Bannon  ·  2016-05-27  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“[T]he aberrant nature of [the prosecutor’s] behavior is evinced by the fact that he ordered the arrests while he had a request for arrest warrants pending before a judge.”
Eplus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.  ·  2015-06-18  ·  Federal Circuit  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“A case remanded for further hearing or over which jurisdic- tion is retained for some purposes may nonetheless be final as to other issues determined.”
Eplus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.  ·  2014-07-25  ·  Federal Circuit  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
“A case remanded for further hearing or over which jurisdiction is retained for some purposes may nonetheless be final as to other issues determined.”
In re: Ernest Felipe Roque  ·  2014-01-31  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 693 F.3d at 896
"Pro se litigants must follow the 2 same rules of procedure that govern other litigants."