Case Citator › Bounds v. Smith

Bounds v. Smith

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
430 U.S. 817
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
298 of 298
Citing cases (total)
4,811
Treatment dates
1989–1996
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Bounds v. Smith was overruled in part: all 298 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatments are listed above. Lewis v. Casey expressly disclaimed Bounds's broader statements about discovering grievances and effective litigation, required actual injury to a nonfrivolous legal claim, and rejected a freestanding entitlement to legal resources.
More on how this was screened

Murray v. Giarratano limited Bounds's reach in state postconviction proceedings. The remaining opinions applied the surviving access-to-courts rule or directed nearby adverse language at other authorities.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

4,811 later cases cite Bounds v. Smith; 298 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Bounds v. Smith?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court disclaimed Bounds's broader suggestions that prison officials must enable prisoners to discover grievances and litigate effectively after filing.

    Lewis v. Casey · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    These statements appear to suggest that the State must enable the prisoner to discover grievances, and to litigate effectively once in court. See Bounds, 430 U. S., at 825-826, and n. 14. These elaborations upon the right of access to the courts have no antecedent in our pre-Bounds cases, and we now disclaim them.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Court limited Bounds by holding that its right-of-access rule does not require appointed counsel for death-row inmates pursuing state postconviction relief.

    Murray v. Giarratano · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    There is no inconsistency whatever between the holding of Bounds and the holding in Finley; the holding of neither case squarely decides the question presented in this case. For the reasons previously stated in this opinion, we now hold that Finley applies to those inmates under sentence of death as well as to other inmates, and that holding necessarily imposes limits on Bounds.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Bounds v. Smith and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace