Howard v. King’s Empirical Analysis
707 F.2d 215 · 1983
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,885 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Jackson v. Cain (1989), Matzker v. Herr (1984)
35 federal appellate · 2 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))
Relies on Anders v. California · Conley v. Gibson · Estelle v. Gamble · Haines v. Kerner · Gregg v. Georgia
Cited together with Baugh v. Taylor · Adepegba v. Hammons · Heck v. Humphrey · Reginald R. Brinkmann, Jr. v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner · Yohey v. Collins
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 1,885 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Most importantly, however, the court was required to look beyond the inmates’ formal complaint and to consider as amendments to the complaint those materials subsequently filed. The court failed to consider the inmates’ motion, memorandum in support, and affidavit, as amendments to the complaint. These documents embellished the original complaint’s averments, and each should have been considered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an inquiry into the merits of the appeal, but does not require that probable success be demonstrated. The Court’s inquiry is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is the responsibility of the courts to be sensitive to possible abuses [in the prison systems] in order to ensure that prisoner complaints, particularly pro se complaints, are not dismissed prematurely, however unlikely the set of facts postulated. An opportunity should be provided the prisoner to develop his case at least to the point where any merit it contains is brought to light.... Pro se prisoner complaints must be read in a liberal fashion and should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond all doubt that the prisoner could prove no set of facts under which he would be entitled to relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jackson v. Cain
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.