Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 391 F.3d 852 - Boriboune v. Berge

Boriboune v. Berge’s Empirical Analysis

391 F.3d 852 · 2004

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2025

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

110200420102020decided

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 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Branch v. Smith · Ag Supply Inc Farm Advantage Incs v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc · Lewis v. Sullivan · In re Prison Litigation Reform Act · Talley-Bey v. Knebl

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

  1. “[Section] 1915(g) limits to three the number of IFP complaints or appeals that were “dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted!.”] This language refers to the complaint or appeal as a whole; thus when any claim in a complaint or appeal is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted!,”] all plaintiffs incur strikes.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It does not follow that § 1915 has superseded Rule 20. The PLRA does not mention Rule 20 or joint litigation. Repeal by implication occurs only when the newer rule is logically incompatible with the older one. And there is no irreconcilable conflict between Rule 20 and the PLRA: Joint litigation does not relieve prisoners of any duties under the more recent statute.”
    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.