In Re: Jacobs

How courts have described this case

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

• “The nature of the underling action determines whether the fee requirements of the PLRA are to apply in a mandamus case”
• “We have long recognized the authority of the district courts to ascertain the potential frivolousness of IFP suits before directing service of process, and this authority has been codified by the PLRA.” (internal citation omitted)
• “We have long recognized the authority of the district courts to ascertain the potential frivolousness of IFP suits before directing service of process, and this authority has been codified by the PLRA.” (internal citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Carrie Sama v. Edward Hannigan
  Fifth Circuit· 2012-02-03· cited 59×
• Coombs v. Staff Attorneys of Third Circuit
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2001-04-26· cited 1×
• Carrie Sama v. Edward Hannigan
  Fifth Circuit· 2012-02-23

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Isiah Carl Green v. Dan v. McKaskle Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections
  Fifth Circuit· 1986-05-05· cited 608×
• In Re Donald J. Willy
  Fifth Circuit· 1987-10-26· cited 48×
• Santee v. Quinlan
  Fifth Circuit· 1997-06-24· cited 43×
• In Re Louis Elton Stone
  Fifth Circuit· 1997-07-18· cited 35×
• In Re Norman Crittenden
  Fifth Circuit· 1998-06-10· cited 16×