Souder v. McGuire’s Empirical Analysis
516 F.2d 820 · 1975
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Evans v. Croom (1981), Kershner v. Mazurkiewicz (1982)
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Relies on Baxstrom v. Herold · Schmidt v. Lessard · Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. · Mackay v. Nesbett · Tobacco Institute, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e do not think that prisoners must totally deprive themselves of those small amenities of life which they are permitted to acquire in a prison or a mental hospital beyond the food, clothing, and lodging already furnished by the state. An account of $50.07 would not purchase many such amenities; perhaps cigarettes and some occasional reading material. These need not be surrendered in order for a prisoner or a mental patient to litigate in forma pauperis in the district court. 3”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Smith · Williams v. Rone“[t]he purpose of [28 U.S.C.] Sec. 1915 is to provide an entre, not a barrier, to the indigent seeking relief in the federal court.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty 'pay or give security for costs ... and still be able to provide' himself and dependents 'with the necessities of life.' " Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. "The purpose of § 1915 is to provide an entr# B1# e, not a barrier, to the indigent seeking relief in the federal court.”
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.