Hogue v. Roach’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Busby v. City of Orlando · Gary v. Long · Lurie v. Halderman · Weaver v. Gross · 886 F. Supp. 94 - Anderson v. Local 201 Reinforcing Rodmen
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiff is not responsible for the lapse of time between submission of his complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis to the Clerk and the official filing of these papers on the docket.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fact that the Clerk's Office returned the papers to plaintiff to correct deficiencies in his application is irrelevant to the issue of timeliness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Litigants are not responsible for the administrative delay associated with the Court's review of petitions to proceed in forma pauperis .”
1 later decision 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.