Evans v. Croom’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

414 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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 532 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Tjhere is nothing unreasonable in requiring [a prisoner], as well as any other plaintiff, to make some contribution, however minimal, to ask him ... “to some small degree to ‘put his money where his mouth is,’ it being all too easy (for him) to file suits, even with sufficient pro forma allegations, if it costs nothing whatever to do so.” Such a requirement imposed “to curb the indiscriminate filing of (meritless) prisoner civil rights actions” is simply forcing the prisoner “to ‘confront the initial dilemma which faces most other potential civil litigants: is the merit of the claim worth the cost of pursuing it?’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hampton v. Hobbs · George v. State

2. “Because plaintiff is no longer indigent, he may no longer prosecute at public expense the large number of actions presently on file in this Court .... In determining whether plaintiff should be entitled to proceed to final resolution without prepayment of costs, this Court is not bound by plaintiffs economic status on the date of filing .... Rather, the Court should, if necessary, take into account all relevant changes in plaintiffs financial condition, both prior to and subsequent to the filing of suit. Thus, if the allegation of poverty is no longer true because of a subsequent improvement in the economic status of plaintiff, it is within the authority of this Court to dismiss the proceeding, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d); ... or, ... require that the costs of the litigation to date be paid by plaintiff in lieu of dismissal.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holsey v. Bass · 971 F. Supp. 985 - Assaad-Faltas v. University of South Carolina

3. “[I]n order for withdrawals from that account to be a basis for denial of indigent status, the district court must be able to say either from the nature or timing of the withdrawal, or both, or from other specific circumstances, that the purpose of the withdrawal appears to have been intended to avoid his obligation under the rule to pay in whole or in part filing costs. And, before reaching such conclusion, the prisoner should be given some reasonable opportunity, after appropriate notice, to explain and refute any finding to that effect, just as he has a right, after notice, to bring to the court’s attention other factors that may authorize either excusing entirely any payment or reducing same.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Collier v. Tatum · In Re Jewell Williamson