Third Circuit· 9/19/1989
James v. Quinlan
Citations
- 886 F.2d 37
- 15 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 188
- 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 13944
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the principle of mutuality equitably read into Rule 39 precluded government from obtaining costs against an IFP litigant because the IFP statute precluded award for litigant against government
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Cited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court· 1971-03-02· cited 3,052×
- In Re McDonaldSupreme Court· 1989-02-21· cited 230×
- Flint v. HaynesFourth Circuit· 1981-06-19· cited 170×
- Paul X. Duhart v. Norman A. Carlson, Director of Prisons, John N. Mitchell, as Attorney General of the United StatesTenth Circuit· 1972-10-11· cited 94×
- James v. QuinlanThird Circuit· 1989-01-30· cited 79×
- Pluchino v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1973-02-26· cited 67×
- Douglas Warren Freeze, Jr. v. George Griffith, Douglas Warren Freeze, Jr. v. Stanley Labove, Douglas Warren Freeze, Jr. v. James R. SavoieFifth Circuit· 1988-07-11· cited 63×
- Kermit F. Gabel and Henry S. Stiehl v. James A. Lynaugh, Director Texas Department of Corrections DefendantsFifth Circuit· 1988-01-08· cited 50×
- Richard Lay v. John AndersonFifth Circuit· 1988-02-12· cited 34×
- In the Matter of Penn Central Transportation Company, DebtorThird Circuit· 1980-09-03· cited 33×
- Willie Harris v. T.J. Forsyth and F. ChristensenEleventh Circuit· 1984-09-14· cited 32×
- Jeffrey L. Galvan v. Cameron Mutual Insurance Co.Eighth Circuit· 1987-12-09· cited 11×
- James v. QuinlanThird Circuit· 1989-09-19· cited 10×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.