695 So. 2d 241 - White v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`[A] court is [not] powerless to protect itself and its process from abuse by unscrupulous prison inmates.' Matter of Green , 586 F.2d 1247 , 1251 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 922 , 99 S.Ct. 1249 , 59 L.Ed.2d 475 (1979). Courts have an `inherent power . . . to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances.' Cotner v. Hopkins , 795 F.2d 900 , 902 (10th Cir. 1986). While those conditions may be `onerous,' they `cannot be so burdensome, however, as to deny a litigant meaningful access to the courts.' Cotner , 795 F.2d at 902 . "`In devising methods to attain the objective of curtailing the activity of such a prisoner, however, courts must carefully observe the fine line between legitimate restraints and an impermissible restriction on a prisoner's constitutional right of access to the courts. Various courts have employed and approved a variety of injunctive devices. "`As to prisoners who bring frequent or repetitious claims, courts have: "`— enjoined prisoner litigants from relitigating specific claims or claims arising from the same set of factual circumstances; "`— required litigants to accompany all future pleadings with affidavits *Page 707 certifying that the claims being raised are novel, subject to contempt for false swearing; "`— directed the litigant to attach to future complaints a list of all cases previously filed involving the same, similar, or related cause of action, and to ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 804 So. 2d 308 - Ex Parte Magouirk · 728 So. 2d 703 - Ex Parte Coleman

2. “"The order of the circuit court enjoining the petitioner from filing any motion or pleading with regard to any of his three cases is overbroad. See generally, L. Yackle, Postconviction Remedies § 155 (1981), Cumulative Supplement (February 1988). "`It is now established beyond doubt that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts.' Bounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817 , 821 , 97 S.Ct. 1491 , 1494 , 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). Though this right is not absolute or unconditional, restrictions may not deprive inmates of `adequate, effective, and meaningful' access to the courts. Bounds , 430 U.S. at 822 , 97 S.Ct. at 1495 . `[L]itigiousness alone will not support an injunction against a plaintiff, . . . and . . . the use of such measures against a pro se plaintiff should be approached with caution.' Pavilonis v. King , 626 F.2d 1075 , 1079 (lst Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 829 , 101 S.Ct. 96 , 66 L.Ed.2d 34 (1980). `Access to the courts is a fundamental tenet of our judicial system;legitimate claims should receive a full and fair hearing no matter how litigious the plaintiff may be.' In re Oliver , 682 F.2d 443 , 446 (3rd Cir. 1982)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Franklin · 804 So. 2d 308 - Ex Parte Magouirk

3. “the appellant from filing further postconviction petitions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 728 So. 2d 703 - Ex Parte Coleman