Case Citator › James M. Jourdan, Jr. v. John Jabe and L. Boyd

James M. Jourdan, Jr. v. John Jabe and L. Boyd

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Good law
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
951 F.2d 108
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
102 of 102
Citing cases (total)
1,639
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. James M. Jourdan, Jr. v. John Jabe and L. Boyd remains good law: all 102 flagged citations have been read, and none adversely treated the decision. The reviewed opinions applied Jourdan's rules that pro se litigants must follow readily comprehensible procedural requirements and that lenient construction does not eliminate basic pleading requirements.
More on how this was screened

Nearby adverse language concerned other precedent, statements that pleading essentials are not abrogated, or rulings on objections and procedural dispositions; it did not wound Jourdan.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

1,639 later cases cite James M. Jourdan, Jr. v. John Jabe and L. Boyd; 102 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on James M. Jourdan, Jr. v. John Jabe and L. Boyd?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 102 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads James M. Jourdan, Jr. v. John Jabe and L. Boyd and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace