Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 828 F.2d 1471 - Yellen v. Cooper

Yellen v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis

828 F.2d 1471 · 1987

Citation profile

87
cited by 87 later decisions
9
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Walker v. Thompson (2002), Whitney v. State of New Mexico (1997)

46 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions

6801987199020002010decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Johnson v. Zerbst · Fuentes v. Shevin · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · United States v. Mauro

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

  1. “Mindful that pro se actions are held to a less stringent standard of review and that sua sponte dismissals are generally disfavored by the courts, we nonetheless allow a complaint to be dismissed under § 1915(d) 'if the plaintiff cannot make a rational argument on the law and facts in support of his claim.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “is obvious from the face of the complaint”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he policy underlying Rule 8(e), affording the plaintiff adequate notice of unanticipated defenses, is not violated when the plaintiff’s in forma pauperis complaint itself sets out facts plainly demonstrating the affirmative defense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.