Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors
Latrell F. SPREWELL v. GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS National Basketball Association, Defendants-Appellees Latrell F. Sprewell, and Robert Thompson, Jr. Gordon J. Rose Stephen G. Weizenecker Thompson & Associates Robert A. Gist Paul F. Utrecht Gist, Kennedy & Associates v. Golden State Warriors National Basketball Association
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
ORDER
The Opinion filed September 14, 2001, is amended as follows:
At Slip Op. 13304-13305 [ 266 F.3d 979 , 989], in the sentence which begins “The arbitration award effectively and persuasively fleshes out the fact ... ”, delete the portion of the sentence that reads, “The arbitration award effectively and persuasively fleshes out the fact that the actions taken by the NBA and the Warriors were motivated solely by Sprewell’s misconduct and were not, as Sprewell states,” and substitute “The uncontested facts set forth in the arbitration award effectively and persuasively rebut the conclusory allegations made by Sprewell, that the actions taken by the NBA and the Warriors were” The sentence would then read:
The uncontested facts set forth in the arbitration award effectively and persuasively rebut the conclusory allegations made by Sprewell, that the actions taken by the NBA and the Warriors were the product of America’s “fear of the black man’s physicality and rage, and the fear and resentment of the black man’s success, along with the corresponding anger that the black man is not grateful for what he has been ‘given.’ ”
With these amendments, the panel as constituted above has voted to deny appellees, National Basketball Association’s, and appellant, Latrell Sprewell’s, petitions for rehearing. Judge Trott has voted to deny the petitions for rehearing en bane, and Judges D.W. Nelson and Thompson so recommend. The full court has been advised of the suggestions for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. Fed. RApp. P. 35(b).
*1189 The petitions for rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 42 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his claims”)
-
(noting that a court need not take “unwarranted deductions of fact” as true on a 6 motion to dismiss)
-
(holding the 4 court need not “accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice 5 or by exhibit.”)
-
(“Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations that are merely conelu-sory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”)
-
(“Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations that 7 are merely conclusory. . . .”)
-
(“We have held that a plaintiff can—as 13 Sprewell has done here—plead himself out of a claim by including unnecessary details 14 contrary to his claims.”)
-
(“Nor is the court required 22 8 Latin term meaning “in good faith,” made in good faith, without fraud or deceit, sincere, genuine. BONA FIDE, 23 Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)
-
(“The court 27 need not, however, accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial 1 Ex. 2. Paradise is not an excluded township under the ordinance. Clark County Code 2 § 7.100.080(c)
Cited by 487 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.