Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 605 NE2D 150 - Campbell v. Criterion Group

Campbell v. Criterion Group’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
3
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 2019

1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

130199220002010decided

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

Relies on Lane v. Brown · Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co. · Thompson v. Thompson · Brooks v. Robinson · Soft Water Utilities, Inc. v. Le Fevre

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

  1. “[a]ny poor person not having sufficient means to prosecute or defend an action may apply to the court in which the action is intended to be brought, or is pending, for leave to prosecute or defend as a poor person. The court, if satisfied that such person has not sufficient means to prosecute or defend the action, shall admit the applicant to prosecute or defend as a poor person, and shall assign him an attorney to defend or prosecute the cause, and all other officers requisite for the prosecution or defense, who shall do their duty therein without taking any fee or reward therefor from such poor person.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis does entitle the pauper to special accommodation with respect to creation of the record. As far as transcription of the evidence is concerned, that accommodation should center on the utilization of Appellate Rule [31(A) ]. Agreed statements, as provided for in Appellate Rule 7.3,[ 6 ] may also be an acceptable alternative. We believe that resort to one of these two mechanisms will enable most appellants to perfect their appeals. Moreover, we believe these mechanisms strike the proper balance between our obligation to protect the procedural entitlements of indigent suitors and the legitimate fiscal needs of our counties. When one of these methods proves inadequate in a particular case, trial courts may authorize additional accommodations, including transcripts, to assure indigents the right of appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Generally, a transeript of the evidence and proceedings at trial must be included in the record for it to be deemed sufficient. Although not fatal to the appeal, failure to include a transcript works a waiver of any specifications of error which depend upon the evidence. Our experience tends to confirm that the expense of preparing transcriptions often runs in the hundreds or thousands of dollars....”
    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.