Case Citator › Lee A. Rand v. James Rowland Nadim Khoury, M.D. William Bunnell Roy Lee Johnson Leo R. Estes

Lee A. Rand v. James Rowland Nadim Khoury, M.D. William Bunnell Roy Lee Johnson Leo R. Estes

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

Vacated
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
113 F.3d 1520
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
159 of 159
Citing cases (total)
1,477
Treatment dates
1998
Vacated
This decision was vacated (set aside), by a higher court or by the same court on rehearing, so it has no force as precedent. The history below says what replaced it. The Ninth Circuit withdrew the panel opinion in Rand v. Rowland except Part II.C on rehearing en banc. Part II.C's exceptional-circumstances rule for appointing counsel remains citable.
More on how this was screened

The en banc court held that a moving party may give a pro se prisoner the required summary judgment notice and reversed the judgment for defendants because their notice was inadequate. All 159 flagged citations have been read; no later opinion further treated the surviving rule.

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.

1,477 later cases cite Lee A. Rand v. James Rowland Nadim Khoury, M.D. William Bunnell Roy Lee Johnson Leo R. Estes; 159 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 Lee A. Rand v. James Rowland Nadim Khoury, M.D. William Bunnell Roy Lee Johnson Leo R. Estes?

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.

Treatments

Vacated

  • The en banc Ninth Circuit withdrew the panel opinion except Part II.C.

    Rand v. Rowland · Ninth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    We reaffirm our decade-old rule under Klingele that a pro se prisoner must be given fair notice of the requirements of Rule 56. Because such notice may be given by the moving party, we overrule Arreola which held to the contrary and withdraw all of the panel’s opinion, except Part II.C.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Lee A. Rand v. James Rowland Nadim Khoury, M.D. William Bunnell Roy Lee Johnson Leo R. Estes 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