5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 21 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 Elustra v. Mineo.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Elustra v. Mineo Anchor | green | “normally, representative parties such as next friends may not conduct litigation pro se; pleadings may be brought before the court only by parties or their attorney.” | 9 |
| 2 | Davis v. Austin | green | “it has been further suggested that a 'next friend' must have some significant relationship with the real party in interest.” | 3 |
| 3 | Davis v. Austin | green | “these limitations on the 'next friend' doctrine are driven by the recognition that 'it was not intended that the writ of habeas corpus should be availed of, as a matter of course, by intruders or uninvited meddlers, styling themselves as next friends.” | 3 |
| 4 | Stephanie Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama | green | “next-friend applicant, among other things, must therefore explain why the detainee did not sign and verify the petition.” | 3 |
| 5 | United States ex rel. Bryant v. Houston | green | “these limitations on the 'next friend' doctrine are driven by the recognition that 'it was not intended that the writ of habeas corpus should be availed of, as a matter of course, by intruders or uninvited meddlers, styling themselves as next friends.” | 3 |
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.