Supreme Court· 5/1/1989

Neitzke v. Williams

Citations

490 U.S. 319
109 S. Ct. 1827
104 L. Ed. 2d 338
1989 U.S. LEXIS 2231
57 U.S.L.W. 4493

How courts have described this case

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

holding that a complaint filed pro se is not automatically frivolous within the meaning of Sec. 1915(d) because it fails to state a claim
holding that a complaint filed pro se is not automatically frivolous within the meaning of § 1915(d) because it fails to state a claim
holding that a claim “is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact”
holding that Rule 12(b)(1) insubstantiality dismissal is appropriate if based on the judge’s disbelief of a complaint’s factual allegations, whereas, a Rule 12(b)(6
holding that Rule 12(b)(1) insubstantiality dismissal is appropriate if based on the judge’s disbelief of a complaint’s factual allegations, whereas, a Rule 12(b)(6
holding that an action is frivolous when it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or presents factual contentions that are clearly baseless

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Marshall

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

At least 1,853 cases in this archive cite this case. Too many to rank, so this is a sample of 20 of them, not the most cited.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Neitzke v. Williams

6 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.