Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 416 F.2d 436 - Michael Pasquarella v. Vincent Santos

Michael Pasquarella v. Vincent Santos’s Empirical Analysis

416 F.2d 436 · 1969

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
6
states following
May 2007
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2007 · most notably Olen (Allen) Lee v. Nathan Habib, Olen Lee v. Nathan Habib (1970), Flint v. Haynes (1981)

16 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

13019691970198019902000decided

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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan 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.

  1. “Nor do we feel that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the waiver provision in section 1915(a) and the unqualified language of section 1446(d). The seeming purpose of section 1915(a) is to waive in one stroke what would otherwise be obligations, rather than insert a separate exception in each provision imposing them. Compare 28 U.S.C. §§ 1917 , 1921, which, like § 1446(d), do not expressly except litigants proceeding in forma pauperis.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]hatever the word "disbursements" in [28 U.S.C.] section 1446(d) may mean, it is to be distinguished from ordinary costs in degree, and not in kind, and still refers only to recoverable expenses of litigation. We find it within the scope of the word "costs" in section 1915(a).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.