Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 819 SW2D 206 - Spellmon v. Sweeney

Spellmon v. Sweeney’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 2013

10 state decisions

80199120002010decided

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 Neitzke v. Williams · Bounds v. Smith · Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. · Acosta v. United States · Republic of Ghana v. Trefalcon Corp.

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

  1. “(a) A court in which an affidavit of inability to pay under Rule 145, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, has been filed may dismiss the action on a finding that: (1) the allegation of poverty in the affidavit is false; or (2) the action is frivolous or malicious. (b) In determining whether an action is frivolous or malicious, the court may consider whether: (1) the action’s realistic chance of success is slight; (2) the claim has no arguable basis in law or in fact; or (3) it is clear that the party cannot prove a set of facts in support of the claim. (c) An action may be dismissed under Subsection (a) as frivolous or malicious either before or after service of process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Prisoners have everything to gain and little to lose by filing ftivolous suits. Green, 788 F.2d at 1119. It costs them almost nothing; time is of no consequence to a prisoner; threats of sanctions are virtually meaningless; and the prisoner can look forward to a day trip to the courthouse. Id. Thus, the temptation to file a frivolous suit is strong. Id. at 1120. Such suits, however, waste valuable judicial resources and subject the state and its prison officials to the burden of unwarranted litigation, preventing claims with merit from being heard expeditiously. Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “1. It must be shown that the litigant has a cognizable common law cause of action that is being restricted. 2. The litigant must show that the restriction is unreasonable or arbitrary when balanced against the purpose and basis of the statute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.