Dupont v. Frank M. Sayford Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that with “no accompanying showing of restricted output,” 20 plaintiff’s allegation that defendant charged higher prices than competitors “failed to present direct 21 evidence of market power”
• explaining that requiring a party to make economic decisions about filing lawsuits based on other costs of living does not deny access to the courts
• stating that the “very nature of incarceration,” including the substantial free time, living expenses paid by the state, and “the essential resources needed to file actions and appeals” provided free of charge, fosters an environment which “allows inmates indiscriminately to file suit”
• rejecting prisoner’s as-applied Equal Protection Clause challenge to the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s filing fee provisions because the prisoner’s inability to spend his restricted funds in the manner that he chooses places him in the same position as non-prisoners
• “An overriding theme of the IFP amendments is that in no event shall a prisoner unable to afford the filing fee be prevented from pursuing his claim.”
• “federal courts spend an inordinate amount of time on prisoner lawsuits, only a very small percentage of which have any merit”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).