Naranjo v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.3d 793 · 2015
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915A · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Neitzke v. Williams · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Bounds v. Smith · Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa · Young v. United States Ex Rel. Vuitton Et Fils S. A.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) whether the indigent litigant is capable of adequately presenting his case; (3) whether the litigant is in a position to investigate the case adequately; (4) whether the evidence will consist in large part of conflicting testimony, thus requiring skill in presentation and cross-examination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kruebbe v. Beevers
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.