Citation network
Bounds Vs. Smith
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 27, 1977
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 817 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Bounds v. SmithSearch
-
U.S. 817 (1977) Bounds v. SmithSearch
-
by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law. Younger v. GilmoreSearch
-
to access to the courts by providing them with law libraries or alternative sources of legal knowledge. In Younger v. GilmoreSearch
-
and that there was no other legal assistance available to inmates. It held on the basis of Younger v. GilmoreSearch
-
sufficient Page 430 U. S. 821 to give inmates reasonable access to the courts, and that our decision in Ross v. MoffittSearch
-
Id. at 312 U. S. 549 . See also Cochran v. KansasSearch
-
indigent prisoners must be allowed to file appeals and habeas corpus petitions without payment of docket fees. Burns v. OhioSearch
-
or adequate substitute, we held that States must provide trial records to inmates unable to buy them. Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
from their convictions. Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 353 , 372 U. S. 358 (1963). Essentially the same standards of access were applied in Johnson v. AverySearch
-
at 393 U. S. 489 . Johnson was unanimously extended to cover assistance in civil rights actions in Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
to function. They argue that, under Johnson v. AverySearch
-
funds to implement affirmatively the right of access. This argument misreads the cases. In Johnson and Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
Page 430 U. S. 824 Johnson v. AverySearch
-
expend funds for transcripts. State expenditures are necessary to pay lawyers for indigent defendants at trial, Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
U. S. 25 (1972), and in appeals as of right, Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
by which a pro se pleading is judged, Haines v. KernerSearch
-
trial judges are bound to overlook meritorious cases without the benefit of an adversary presentation. Cf. Gardner v. CaliforniaSearch
-
cases here was initially dismissed by the same judge who later ruled for respondents, possibly because Younger v. GilmoreSearch
-
other forms of legal assistance are unnecessary to assure meaningful access in light of the Court's decision in Ross v. MoffittSearch
-
because they directly protect our most valued rights. Johnson v. AverySearch
-
C. Our holding today is, of course, a reaffirmation of the result reached in Younger v. GilmoreSearch
-
This Court explicitly decided that question when it affirmed the judgment of the District Court in reliance on Johnson v. AverySearch
-
full briefing and oral argument. Gilmore has been relied upon without question in our subsequent decisions. Cruz v. HauckSearch
-
Chan v. StynchcombeSearch
-
Most recently, in Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
handling of prisoner cases, but also avoid the disciplinary problems associated with writ writers, see Johnson v. AverySearch
-
Eskridge v. WashingtonSearch
-
Long v. DistrictSearch
-
Williams v. OklahomaSearch
-
Mayer v. ChicagoSearch
-
claims to transcripts have done so either because an adequate alternative was available but not used, Britt v. NorthSearch
-
or because the request was plainly frivolous and a prior opportunity to obtain a transcript was waived, United States v. MacCollomSearch
-
The same standards were applied in United States v. MacCollomSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial