Phillips v. Carey’s Empirical Analysis
638 F.2d 207 · 1981
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer (2005), Tripati v. Beaman (1989)
37 federal appellate · 6 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act)
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Turner v. Louisiana · Willard Dairy Corp. v. National Dairy Products Corp. · Upper Pecos Ass'n v. Peterson · Reardon v. Meacham
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n indigent person has no constitutional or other right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous, malicious, or which seeks to harass.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f the complaint or other pleadings are abusive or contain offensive language, they may be stricken sua sponte under the inherent powers of the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is filed and the poverty affidavit is facially sufficient, the complaint should be filed.... The complaint is then tested under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d)....”
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.