Legal Opinion

Hilgeford v. PEOPLES BANK, PORTLAND, IND.

District Court, N.D. Indiana

Decided April 19, 1985No. Civ. F 85-154PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

WILLIAM C. LEE, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on its sua sponte analysis of the complaint filed in this cause. For the following reasons, this cause will be dismissed on the court’s own motion.

Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se. Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). The district court’s role is to ensure that the claims of pro se litigants are given “fair and meaningful consideration.” Matzker v. Herr, 748 F.2d 1142, 1146 (7th Cir.1984); Caruth v. Pinkney, 683 F.2d 1044, 1050 (7th Cir.1982).…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Edward James Matzker, Jr. v. Raymond Herr, Sheriff, Richard A. Schaab, Lt. And Mary Pearsall, Corrections OfficerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
  3. Alsansa X. Caruth v. Thaddeus E. Pinkney, Warden, David Sandahl, Assistant Warden, and William O'sullivan, Assistant WardenCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
  4. Snyder v. Internal Revenue ServiceDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1984
  5. Young v. Internal Revenue ServiceDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1984

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. United States v. Arnold W. HilgefordCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
  2. Arnold W. Hilgeford and Martha A. Hilgeford v. The Peoples Bank, Portland, IndianaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
  3. Britt v. Federal Land Bank Ass'n of St. LouisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1987
  4. Parkway Bank and Trust Company v. KorzenAppellate Court of Illinois · 2013
  5. Hilgeford v. PEOPLES BANK, INC., PORTLAND, IND.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1986

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

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

Powered by the Exa API