Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 608 F.3d 77 - Sam ex rel. Elliott v. Carcieri

Sam ex rel. Elliott v. Carcieri’s Empirical Analysis

608 F.3d 77 · 2010

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 2025
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 5 district ·

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 421 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Salve Regina College v. Russell · Whitmore v. Arkansas · Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense v. Padilla et al. · Figueroa v. Rivera · Skwira ex rel. Estate of Skwira v. United States

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

  1. “To qualify for appointment as a "next friend,” an individual must: (i) provide adequate explanation for why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf, such as mental incompetence or other disability; (ii) be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf the lawsuit is brought; (iii) have no interest that conflicts with that of the incompetent person; and (iv) have some significant relationship with the real party of interest, often that of a parent, a sibling or other close relative.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Rule 17(c) 'gives a federal court power to authorize someone other than a lawful representative to sue on behalf of an infant or incompetent person where that representative is unable, unwilling or refuses to act or has interests which conflict with those of the infant or incompetent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The minor's best interests are of paramount importance in deciding whether a Next Friend should be appointed, but the ultimate 'decision as to whether or not to appoint [a Next Friend or guardian ad litem] rests with the sound discretion of the district 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.