Cookish v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
787 F.2d 1 · 1986
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 28 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Tabron v. Grace (1993), Sands II v. Lewis Adoc (1989)
43 federal appellate · 28 district · 5 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Estelle v. Gamble · Bell v. Wolfish · Bounds v. Smith · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Block v. Rutherford
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n indigent litigant must demonstrate exceptional circumstances in his or her case to justify the appointment of counsel.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Some factors which courts have found to bear on the question of exceptional circumstances in a particular case include the indigent's ability to conduct whatever factual investigation is necessary to support his or her claim [citation omitted]; the complexity of the factual and legal issues involved [citation omitted]; and the capability of the indigent litigant to present the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bemis v. Kelley
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.