Peterson v. Nadler’s Empirical Analysis
452 F.2d 754 · 1971
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2020 · most notably Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa (1989), Ulmer v. Chancellor (1982)
62 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Relies on Johnson v. Avery · Schlagenhauf v. Holder · County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co. · Braunfeld v. Gibbons · Federal Trade Commission v. Textile & Apparel Group
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Lawyers have long served in state and federal practice as appointed counsel for indigents in both criminal and civil cases. The vast majority of the bar have viewed such appointments to be integrally within their professional duty to provide public service. Only rarely are lawyers asked to serve in civil matters. We have the utmost confidence that lawyers will always be found who will fully cooperate in rendering the indigent equal justice at the bar.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To- delay the action until plaintiff is released from prison could conceivably forever deny his securing presently available evidence which he alleges is necessary to prove his claim * * *. And to arbitrarily deny even the bare opportunity to process his claim for an indefinite number of years could well render the legal process meaningless for this plaintiff.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“are stricken from the district court order entered April 16, 1975. The district court's indefinite stay of all proceedings is tantamount to a denial of due process. Simply because a person is incarcerated does not mean that he is stripped of free access to the courts and the use of legal process to remedy civil wrongs. The rule of this Circuit is that:”
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.