green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…clerical delay in the formal filing of this in forma pauperis complaint should not affect the operative event, that is, the receipt of the complaint by the court.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hernandez v. Erazo
clerical delay in the formal filing of this in forma pauperis complaint should not affect the operative event, that is, the receipt of the complaint by the court.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hernandez v. Erazo
clerical delay in the formal filing of this in forma pauperis complaint should not affect the operative event, that is, the receipt of the complaint by the court.
cited
Cited "see"
Goodrow v. Lane Bryant, Inc.
See Bratt v. County of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1086 (1991); 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 (a).
discussed
Cited "see"
John Doe v. Cutter Biological, Inc., a Division of Miles Laboratories, Inc. Miles Laboratories and Armour Pharmaceutical Corporation
Vulk v. Haley, 112 Idaho 855, 857 , 736 P.2d 1309, 1311 (1987); see Evans v. Twin Falls County, 118 Idaho 210, 215-16 , 796 P.2d 87, 92-93 (1990) (right of action under tort died with the pre-judgment death of the victim), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1086 (1991) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
John Van Dyke v. East Shoshone Hospital District John F. Cowley, in His Individual Capacity
See Evans v. Twins Falls County, 796 P.2d 87, 95 (Idaho 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1086 , 111 S.Ct. 960 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1048 (1991); Czaplicki v. Gooding Joint Sch.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Martin v. Indiana Michigan Power Co.
Williams v. Tri-County Growers, Inc., 747 F.2d 121, 129 (3d Cir.1984) (citations omitted); see also Bratt v. County of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 1066, 1071 (9th Cir.1990) (“The statutory requirement of good faith and reasonable grounds establishes a test with both subjective and objective components”), cer t. denied, 498 U.S. 1086 , 111 S.Ct. 962 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Johnson
The Clerk’s subsequent failure to actually file the document has no effect on the validity of filing. 1 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 5.30(l)(a)(ii) (3d ed.1997); see also Hernandez v. Aldridge, 902 F.2d 386, 388 (5th Cir.1990) (receipt of Title VII complaint constituted filing even though clerk did not actually file it within limitations period), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1086 , 111 S.Ct. 962 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Reich v. Chicago Title Insurance
This Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit’s common sense approach, which explains that “[t]he distinction § 541.205(a) draws is between those employees whose primary duty is administering the business affairs of the enterprise from those whose primary duty is producing the commodity or commodities, whether goods or services, that the enterprise exists to produce and market.” Dalheim v. KDFW-TV, 918 F.2d 1220, 1230 (5th Cir.1990); see also Bratt v. County of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.1990) (test is whether workers engaged in running the business or carrying out its day-to-…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alexander
v.
Evans & Dixon Law Firm
v.
Evans & Dixon Law Firm
No. 90-901.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 19, 1991.
498 U.S. 1086
Published
Citer courts: W.D. Texas (2)
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.