Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 29 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Cuoco v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cuoco v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons Anchor | green | “the ability to proceed ifp is a privilege provided for the benefit of indigent persons.” | 11 |
| 2 | Vann v. Commissioner of New York City Department of Correction | green | “serves the purpose of preventing abuse of the judicial system by weeding out the litigants who falsely understate their net worth in order to obtain ifp status when they are not entitled to that status based on their true net worth.” | 9 |
| 3 | Cuoco v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons | green | “the court system depends on the honesty and forthrightness of applicants to ensure that the privilege is not abused.” | 9 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.