SCHILB ET AL.

v.

KUEBEL; RESOLUTE INSURANCE CO. ET AL. V. SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY ET AL.; WESTMORELAND V. MISSISSIPPI; KADANS V. COLLINS, CHIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, ET AL.; COUCH, ADMINISTRATRIX V. MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD CO.; UNITED STATES STEEL CORP. V. BLAIR; CUNNINGHAM V. WINGO, WARDEN; FELAN V. UNITED STATES; GALDEIRA ET AL. V. RICHARDSON ET AL.; SHAPPELL V. MARTIN-MARIETTA CORP.; TODARO V. UNITED STATES; MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ET AL.; LOGAN V. CORRECTIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, WALLKILL PRISON

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• Earnest Bach and Robert Pryor v. Coughlin, 508 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1974)
  …Bach made on behalf of both of them to Pryor’s case on appeal. III This court must determine what issues have been preserved for appeal. In so doing we are bound by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), reh. denied, 405 U.S. 948, 92 S.Ct. 963, 30 L.Ed.2d 819 (1972), to liberally construe the notice of appeal since it is a pro se prisoners’ petition. The notice of appeal is specifically limited to “Count I” of the complaint, which the District Court in its memorandum opinio…
• Code v. Montgomery, 725 F.2d 1316 (11th Cir. 1984)
  …the state habeas judge addressed in his dispositive order. Claims presented pro se are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Ker-ner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652, reh’g denied 405 U.S. 948, 92 S.Ct. 963, 30 L.Ed.2d 819 (1972). . We are thus faced with a petition containing only exhausted claims and can rule on them. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982). . We find no support for petitioner’s argument…
• Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1988)
  …hat the definition of “frivolous” may be influenced by Supreme Court cases discussing standards for dismissal of pro se complaints. Id. at 60-61. See, e.g., Haines v. [*1425] Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 reh’g denied, 405 U.S. 948, 92 S.Ct. 963, 30 L.Ed.2d 819 (1972). See also, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 reh’g denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967) (discussing in a different context that a contention is no…