Citation network
Rowland Vs. California Men's Colony, Unit Ii Men's Advisory Council
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 12, 1993
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
-
Rowland v. CaliforniaSearch
-
October Term, 1992 Syllabus Rowland, Former Director, California Department of Corrections, Et Al. V. CaliforniaSearch
-
turn that Congress was thinking in terms of natural persons, because the law permits corporations, see, e. g., Osborn v. PresidentSearch
-
of Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 829, and other artificial entities, see, e. g., Eagle Associates v. BankSearch
-
single purpose that would be substantially frustrated by limiting the statutory reach to natural persons. Wil son v. OmahaSearch
-
certiorari, 503 U. S. 905 (1992), to resolve a conflict between that decision and the holding in FDM Manufacturing Co. v. ScottsdaleSearch
-
a term held, in the only two cases on the issue, to exclude corporations. See Atlantic S. S. Corp. v. KelleySearch
-
Quittner v. MotionSearch
-
and its predecessors. See, e. g., Green v. BockSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Commissioner v. BrownSearch
-
Caminetti v. UnitedSearch
-
Wall. 482, 486-487 (1869). 201 Nary v. HaitianSearch
-
counsel, see Mallard v. UnitedSearch
-
two centuries, for example, that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel. Osborn v. PresidentSearch
-
see Turner v. AmericanSearch
-
the present holding that a corporation may only be represented by licensed counsel), affirmance order sub nom. Taylor v. MontgomerySearch
-
F.2d 715 (CA7 1976), and aff'd sub nom. Pilla v. AmericanSearch
-
or associations to appear in federal court otherwise than through a licensed attorney. See, e. g., Eagle Associates v. BankSearch
-
Taylor v. KnappSearch
-
Jones v. NiagaraSearch
-
Richdel, Inc. v. SunspoolSearch
-
Southwest Express Co. v. ICCSearch
-
United States v. ReevesSearch
-
sole shareholder can appear for a closely held corporation), affirmance order sub nom. Holliday's Tax Services, Inc. v. HauptmanSearch
-
These cases neither follow federal precedent, nor have themselves been followed. See, e. g., Eagle Associates v. BankSearch
-
Strong Delivery Ministry Assn. v. BoardSearch
-
Simbraw, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Moya Enterprises, Inc. v. HarrySearch
-
Strand Restaurant Co. v. ParksSearch
-
Adkins, supra, at 338 (quoting Pothier v. RodmanSearch
-
Kreps v. CommissionerSearch
-
S. O. U. P., Inc. V. FtcSearch
-
assets should be treated in forma pauperis unless they were organized to cheat the courts.9 United States v. KrasSearch
-
character of the organization or the litigation in question. See River Valley, Inc. v. DubuqueSearch
-
Harlem River Consumers Cooperative, Inc. v. AssociatedSearch
-
in each of these cases, some other aspect of statutory context independently indicated the broad reading. In Wilson v. OmahaSearch
-
and A & P Trucking Co. confirm our focus on context, but turned on contextual indicators not present here.12 V TheSearch
-
broadly. See, e. g., NLRB v. CatholicSearch
-
the Council v. RowlandSearch
-
s under- 1 I should note, however, that the majority departs from that understanding in its discussion of Wilson v. OmahaSearch
-
is determined by the law of the State in 215 an affidavit through an agent. See, e. g., Davidson v. JonesSearch
-
Sime v. HunterSearch
-
Payne v. CivilSearch
-
Kepl v. ManzanitaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial