Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 173 FAPPX 180 - Jones v. Hendricks

Jones v. Hendricks’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
March 2008
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915A · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey · Saldana v. Kmart Corp. · Henry Rauser v. Martin Horn in His Official Capacity As Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · Fireman's Insurance v. DuFresne

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this claim. Although Jones’s allegations were sufficient to survive dismissal under section 1915(e)(2), Jones has come forth with no other information from which any actual injury is shown and refers only to the conclusory allegations of his complaint. For example, Jones provides no case names, case numbers, dates of the alleged dismissals at issue, or any other specific facts regarding his affected litigation. FN1 He points to nothing in the record showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. We note that the right of access to the courts does not encompass the right to litigate as effectively as he would like once in court. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.