63 Ohio App. 3d 495 - Kondrat v. Byron’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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

1. ““Further, in Bd. of Cty. Commrs. v. Barday (1979), 197 Colo. 519 , at 522, 594 P.2d 1057 , at 1059, it was stated: “We recognize that the Colorado Constitution guarantees to every person the right of access to courts of justice in this state. Colo. Const. Art. II, Sec. 6. However, the right of access to courts does not include the right to impede the normal functioning of judicial processes. Nor does it include the right to abuse judicial processes in order to harass others. Where we find, as here, that a ‘pro se’ litigant’s efforts to obtain relief in our courts not only hamper his own cause, but deprive other persons of precious judicial resources, we must deny his right of self-representation as a plaintiff. We note that only his right of self-representation is being denied, not his right of access to the courts; Mr. Barday is still free to proceed through an attorney of his choice, and he is still free to appear ‘pro se’ in his own ‘defense.’ Thus, this injunction works no infringement on respondent’s constitutional rights.’ ” Kondrat, supra, 63 Ohio App.3d at 498 , 579 N.E.2d at 288-289 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 100 Ohio App. 3d 592 - State Ex Rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners