38 So. 3d 119 - Ex Parte Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Allen v. Wright · Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey · Bounds v. Smith · Boddie v. Connecticut
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Moreover, in Peoples v. State, 531 So.2d 323 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), this Court, quoting the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1072-73 (11th Cir.1986), cited with approval the sanctions a court may legally impose when faced with litigious and prolific pro se litigants: “ ‘Courts have an “inherent power ... to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances.” Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir.1986). While those conditions may be “onerous,” they “cannot be so burdensome, however, as to deny a litigant meaningful access to the courts.” Cotner, 795 F.2d at 902 . “ ‘ “In devising methods to attain the objective of curtailing the activity of such a prisoner, however, courts must carefully observe the fine line between legitimate restraints and an impermissible restriction on a prisoner’s constitutional right of access to the courts. Various courts have employed and approved a variety of injunctive devices. “ ‘ “As to prisoners who bring frequent or repetitious claims, courts have: “ ‘ “-enjoined prisoner litigants from relitigating specific claims or claims arising from the same set of factual circumstances; “ ‘ “-required litigants to accompany all future pleadings with affidavits certifying that the claims being raised are novel, subject to contempt for false swearing; “ ‘ “-directed the litigant to attach to future complaints a lis”
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.