Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 30 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from In Re Estate of Pellico.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Estate of Pellico Anchor | green | “pro se litigants are presumed to have full knowledge of applicable court rules and procedures and must comply with the same rules and procedures as would be required of litigants represented by attorneys.” | 9 |
| 2 | Hall v. Naper Gold Hospitality | green | “the purpose of the rules is to require parties before a reviewing court to present clear and orderly arguments so that the court can properly ascertain and dispose of the issues involved.” | 7 |
| 3 | In Re Estate of Pellico | green | “presumed to have full knowledge of applicable court rules and procedures and must comply with the same rules and procedures as would be required of litigants represented by attorneys.” | 5 |
| 4 | In Re Estate of Pellico | green | “further, we note that pro se litigants are presumed to have full knowledge of applicable court rules and procedures and must comply with the same rules and procedures as would be required of litigants represented by attorneys.” | 3 |
| 5 | People v. Richardson | green | “finally, where a defendant elects to proceed pro se, he is responsible for his representation and is held to the same standards as an attorney.” | 3 |
| 6 | In re Estate of Parker | green | “reviewing courts will not search the record for purposes of finding error when an appellant has made no good-faith effort to comply with the supreme court rules governing the contents of briefs.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.