Lundahl v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Supreme Court

Lundahl v. Eli Lilly & Co.

544 U.S. 997, 125 S. Ct. 1940

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided April 25, 2005·No. 04-8838·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, and cases cited therein. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this 'petition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, and cases cited therein. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this 'petition.

Lundahl v. Eli Lilly & Co., 544 U.S. 997, 125 S. Ct. 1940 (2005).

Pincite

544 U.S. 997 (Lundahl v. Eli Lilly & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related