Howard v. Whitbeck’s Empirical Analysis
382 F.3d 633 · 2004
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Memphis Biofuels, LLC v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc. (2009), Cartwright v. Garner (2014)
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Relies on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Pennzoil Company v. Texaco Inc · Ohio National Life Insurance v. United States · Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For purposes of this section, the fact of a prisoner’s incarceration cannot be the sole basis for a determination of indigency. However, this section shall not prohibit a prisoner from commencing a civil action or filing an appeal in a civil action if the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee. If the court, pursuant to court rule, waives or suspends the payment of fees and costs in an action described in subsection (1) because the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee, the court shall order the fees and costs to be paid by the prisoner in the manner provided in this section when the reason for the waiver or suspension no longer exists.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Howard v. Whitbeck“Whether or not Howard’s general challenge to the Michigan statute would ultimately succeed is irrelevant to the question of subject matter jurisdiction, as long as the claim presented is not frivolous .... While the thrust of the complaint is definitely an “as applied” challenge, the language used clearly indicates that the statute itself is also being challenged as unconstitutional, and under Feldman , the dismissal of the as-applied claim on the basis of Rooker-Feldman does not mean that the facial challenge cannot be allowed to proceed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“We normally review de novo the district court's decision to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).”
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.