Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Lewis Vs. Casey

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 24, 1996

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

74 entries 14 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. GriffIn Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1956
    Relied / Followed
  2. Johnson Vs. Avery US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1969
  3. Burns Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1959
  4. Cochran Vs. Kansas US Supreme Court · May 11, 1942
  5. Bell Vs. Wolfish US Supreme Court · May 14, 1979
  6. Preiser Vs. Rodriguez US Supreme Court · May 07, 1973
    Distinguished
  7. Turner Vs. Safley US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1987
  8. Estelle Vs. Gamble US Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1976
  9. SandIn Vs. Conner US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1995
  10. Flast Vs. Cohen US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
  11. United States Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1974
  12. Warth Vs. Seldin US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1975
  13. Califano Vs. Yamasaki US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1979
  14. Murray Vs. Giarratano US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1989
  15. U.S. 343 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Et Al. V. Casey
    Search
  16. legal research facilities and thereby depriving them of their right of access to the courts, in violation of Bounds v. Smith
    Search
  17. for even named plaintiffs in a class action must show that they personally have been injured, see, e. g., Simon v. Eastern
    Search
  18. Court failed to accord the judgment of prison authorities the substantial deference required by cases such as Turner v. Safley
    Search
  19. The court also failed to leave with prison officials the primary responsibility for devising a remedy. Compare Preiser v. Rodriguez
    Search
  20. for the Mexican American Legal 346 JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. In Bounds v. Smith
    Search
  21. principle that prevents courts of law from undertaking tasks assigned to the political branches. See Allen v. Wright
    Search
  22. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans
    Search
  23. we shall discuss, the point relates to standing, which is jurisdictional and not subject to waiver. See United States v. Hays
    Search
  24. PBS, Inc. v. Dallas
    Search
  25. of needed medical treatment were able to claim violation of his constitutional right to medical care, see Estelle v. Gamble
    Search
  26. state prison officials from actively interfering with inmates' attempts to prepare legal documents, e. g., Johnson v. Avery
    Search
  27. Ex parte Hull, 312 U. S. 546 , 547-549 (1941), and by requiring state courts to waive filing fees, e. g., Burns v. Ohio
    Search
  28. U. S. 252 , 258 (1959), or transcript fees, e. g., Griffin v. Illinois
    Search
  29. that contained the original complaints in two of the more significant inmate-initiated cases in recent years, Sandin v. Conner
    Search
  30. U. S. 472 (1995), and Hudson v. McMillian
    Search
  31. of unaddressed jurisdictional defects has no precedential effect. See, e. g., Federal Election Comm'n v. NRA
    Search
  32. United States v. More
    Search
  33. that a nonfrivolous 3 legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded.4 3 JUSTICE SOUTER believes that Bounds v. Smith
    Search
  34. post, at 398399, quoting Flast v. Cohen
    Search
  35. was the only value protected by standing. See, e. g., United States v. Richardson
    Search
  36. Schlesinger v. Reservists
    Search
  37. no relevant injury in fact, i. e., injury-in-fact caused by the violation of legal right. See Allen v. Wright
    Search
  38. attempts by inmates to pursue direct appeals from the convictions for which they were incarcerated, see Douglas v. California
    Search
  39. U. S. 255 , 256 (1942), or habeas petitions, see Johnson v. Avery
    Search
  40. Ex parte Hull, supra, at 547548. In Wolff v. McDonnell
    Search
  41. Supplemental App. to Pet. for Cert. in Bounds v. Smith
    Search
  42. course be limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in fact that the plaintiff has established. See Missouri v. Jenkins
    Search
  43. Simon v. Eastern
    Search
  44. Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26 , 40, n. 20 (1976), quoting Warth v. Seldin
    Search
  45. Lujan v. Defenders
    Search
  46. inadequate basis for a conclusion of systemwide violation and imposition of systemwide relief. See Dayton Bd. of Ed. v. Brinkman
    Search
  47. Blum v. Yaret
    Search
  48. but we did not disturb the class definition. See 457 U. S., at 997, n. 11, 999-1002. 360 Califano v. Yamasaki
    Search
  49. decree imposed 361 III There are further reasons why the order here cannot stand. We held in Turner v. Safley
    Search
  50. Ibid. (citation omitted), quoting Jones v. North
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial