Alexander v. Evans & Dixon Law Firm, 498 U.S. 1086 (1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Alexander v. Evans & Dixon Law Firm, 498 U.S. 1086 (1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: John Doe v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 89 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 1996)
How cited ↗
Cited for
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“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.”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed
  • Hernandez v. Erazo, No. 5:22-cv-01069 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2023).
    “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.”
  • Hernandez v. Erazo, No. 5:22-cv-01069 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2023).
    “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.”
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alexander
v.
Evans & Dixon Law Firm
No. 90-901.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 19, 1991.
Published opinion
498 U.S. 1086
Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 75%
Citer courts: W.D. Texas (2)

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.