Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 209 F.2d 105 - United States ex rel. Morris v. Radio Station WENR

United States ex rel. Morris v. Radio Station WENR’s Empirical Analysis

209 F.2d 105 · 1953

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
3
states following
April 1990
most recently cited

68 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently April 1990 · most notably In Re Ferguson (1961), Paul Rodger Weller v. Fred H. Dickson, Andrew Emmitte Pope v. Richard A. McGee (1963)

68 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

55019531960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Relies on Quirin Haupt Kerling Burger Heinck Thiel Neubauer United States Quirin v. Cox Usa 6 · Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co. · Higgins v. Steele · Stroud v. Swope

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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““* * * ‘We think that it is well settled that it is not the function of the courts to superintend the treatment and discipline of prisoners in penitentiaries, but only to deliver from imprisonment those who are illegally confined.’ Stroud v. Swope, Warden, 9 Cir., 187 F.2d 850, 851 .””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In the interest of orderly procedure and of keeping proper court records, it may be advisable to permit the petitioner to file his petition if it is one which the court has jurisdiction to entertain, and then to dismiss it ‘if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.’ 28 U.S.C. A. § 1915(d). But there is no reason why a respondent in a patently frivolous proceeding should be called upon to make a return or answer, or why an appeal in forma pauperis should be allowed a petitioner from an order dismissing such a proceeding or denying the relief prayed for. The District Court may, however, we think, for the sake of the record, permit the filing of a notice of appeal without prepayment of costs, even in a frivolous case, before certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith, in order to avoid any controversy as to the time when the notice was received by the Clerk. * * * “The federal courts should, we think, do all that reasonably and lawfully may be done to dispose of petitions for habeas corpus, and kindred proceedings, which are patently frivolous or obviously without merit, as expeditiously and with as little trouble and expense to the respondents as possible. While it is important that no prisoner be denied justice because of his poverty, it is also important that the prison authorities, government counsel, and the courts be not harassed by patently repetitious, meritless, frivolous or malicious proceedings.””
    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.