In re Veneri, 531 U.S. 810 (2000). · Go Syfert
In re Veneri, 531 U.S. 810 (2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“as petitioner has repeatedly abused this court's process, the clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with rule 33.1.”
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: VENERI, JR. v. STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION (paed, 2021-03-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) VENERI, JR. v. STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
E.D. Pa. · 2021 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
as petitioner has repeatedly abused this court's process, the clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with rule 33.1.
discussed Cited "see" VENERI v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
E.D. Pa. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Veneri, 531 U.S. 810 (2000) (“As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee e.g., Veneri v. Commonwealth of Pa., E.D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Veneri
No. 00-5382.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 2000.
531 U.S. 810
Stevens.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 78%
Citer courts: E.D. Pennsylvania (1)

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

Justice Stevens dissents.

See id., at 4, and eases cited therein.