Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

511 F.2d 172

Docket No. 74--3215.

Hutto v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1975-04-11

2 counsel of record

Relies on Pierson v. Ray · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · Wisconsin v. Yoder

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1975-04-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2001 · most notably Doe v. United States Department of Justice (1985), Fox v. Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (1994)

23 federal appellate ·

1201975198019902000decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

David H. Berg, Houston, Tex., for petitioner-appellant.

Anthony J. P. Farris, U.S. Atty., Mary L. Sinderson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before WISDOM, BELL and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

¶1

The opinion of this court dated March 7, 1975, 509 F.2d 132, does not expressly or impliedly grant in forma pauperis status to Petitioner-Appellant, nor does it expressly or impliedly interdict the statutory power of the clerk of the district court to require the payment of a filing fee in the civil proceeding which Petitioner-Appellant desires to commence. The cause should have been treated as a civil action initially. It should be so treated now, but no differently from any other civil action. Either the proper fees should be paid or in forma pauperis status must be established according to law.

¶2

It is ordered that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is here by denied.

/511/f2d/172 · .json · Public domain