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 3 cases, quoted by 180 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 Edward M. Farguson v. Mbank Houston, N.A..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Edward M. Farguson v. Mbank Houston, N.A. Anchor | green | “an impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation and abuse already overloaded court dockets.” | 85 |
| 2 | Eason v. Thaler | green | “the facts alleged are 'fantastic or delusional scenarios' or the legal theory upon which a complaint relies is 'indisputably meritless.” | 56 |
| 3 | Harper v. Showers | green | “a complaint lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.” | 39 |
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.