Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Karr v. Williams

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided July 1, 2002No. 02SA18PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

In this original proceeding, we issued a rule to show cause why Respondent, Paul Williams, 1 should not be enjoined from proceeding pro se as a plaintiff in pending or future litigation in the courts of this state. We now make that rule absolute but with this modification: Respondent may proceed pro se if he obtains leave of the court in which he intends to file an action in the manner we prescribe below. Otherwise, he must be represented by an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Respondent, who is currently serving a term of incarceration…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Robert Procup v. C. StricklandCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1986
  2. In Re SindramSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Winslow v. RomerDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1991
  4. People v. SpencerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1974
  5. People v. DunlapSupreme Court of Colorado · 1981

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Negron v. GolderColorado Court of Appeals · 2004
  2. Switzer v. SwitzerSupreme Court of Virginia · 2007
  3. People v. MaynardSupreme Court of Colorado · 2009
  4. People v. MaynardSupreme Court of Colorado · 2009
  5. Weaver v. School Board of Leon CountyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API