Gluth v. Kangas

How courts have described this case

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

• it is not acceptable to require an indigent prisoner to have to “choose between purchasing essential hygienic supplies and essential legal supplies”
• it is not acceptable to require an indigent prisoner to have to “choose between purchasing essential hygienic supplies and essential legal supplies”
• it is not acceptable to require an indigent prisoner to have to “choose between purchasing essential hygienic supplies and essential legal supplies”
• it is not acceptable to require an indigent prisoner to have to “choose between purchasing essential hygienic supplies and essential legal supplies”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Lewis v. Casey
  Supreme Court· 1996-06-24· cited 7,493×
• Carl Anthony Thomas v. Samuel A. Lewis
  Ninth Circuit· 1991-09-27· cited 175×
• Casey v. Lewis
  D. Arizona· 1992-11-13· cited 14×
• Hook v. State of Ariz.
  D. Arizona· 1995-10-17· cited 11×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Bounds v. Smith
  Supreme Court· 1977-04-27· cited 4,812×
• Joseph Toussaint, Plaintiffs/appellees/cross-Appellants v. Daniel McCarthy Defendants/appellants/cross-Appellees
  Ninth Circuit· 1986-09-30· cited 960×
• Temple v. Ellerthorpe
  D. Rhode Island· 1984-05-23· cited 348×
• Sands v. Lewis
  Ninth Circuit· 1989-09-29· cited 261×
• Phillip L. Lindquist v. Idaho State Board of Corrections
  Ninth Circuit· 1985-11-15· cited 213×
• Kenneth Souder v. Michael McGuire Superintendent, Farview State Hospital, Waymart, Pennsylvania
  Third Circuit· 1975-05-13· cited 84×