Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992), was a Supreme Court opinion denying a petition for motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as the petitioner had repeatedly abused the process. Specifically, the Court prohibited the petitioner from filing further non-criminal in forma pauperis petitions, and that all petitions filed must be compliant with Court rules and must have had the filing fee paid. The dissent, written by Justice Stevens, argued that the result violated the "open access" of the Court.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992), was a Supreme Court opinion denying a petition for motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as the petitioner had repeatedly abused the process. Specifically, the Court prohibited the petitioner from filing further non-criminal in forma pauperis petitions, and that all petitions filed must be compliant with Court rules and must have had the filing fee paid. The dissent, written by Justice Stevens, argued that the result violated the "open access" of the Court. (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 39821464 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 2301 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 901244695 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:case
  • Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, (en)
dbp:courtlistener
dbp:decidedate
  • --11-02
dbp:decideyear
  • 1992 (xsd:integer)
dbp:dissent
  • Stevens (en)
dbp:docket
  • 92 (xsd:integer)
dbp:findlaw
dbp:googlescholar
dbp:holding
  • Petitioner is not entitled to file non-criminal in forma pauperis petitions for writ of certiorari, and must file all such petitions in compliance with Court rules and pay for them. (en)
dbp:joindissent
  • Blackmun (en)
dbp:justia
dbp:litigants
  • Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals (en)
dbp:loc
dbp:oyez
dbp:parallelcitations
  • 172800.0
dbp:percuriam
  • Yes (en)
dbp:uspage
  • 1 (xsd:integer)
dbp:usvol
  • 506 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dct:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992), was a Supreme Court opinion denying a petition for motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as the petitioner had repeatedly abused the process. Specifically, the Court prohibited the petitioner from filing further non-criminal in forma pauperis petitions, and that all petitions filed must be compliant with Court rules and must have had the filing fee paid. The dissent, written by Justice Stevens, argued that the result violated the "open access" of the Court. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of