Neitzke v. Williams

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).