Case Citator › Denton v. Hernandez

Denton v. Hernandez

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

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
504 U.S. 25
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
537 of 537
Citing cases (total)
9,936
Treatment dates
1997
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Denton v. Hernandez has been superseded by statute as to its abuse-of-discretion appellate standard. All 537 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

McGore v. Wrigglesworth supplied the one confirmed treatment listed below, holding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires de novo review under the amended statute. The other opinions continued to apply Denton's substantive factual-frivolousness rule or placed treatment language in history parentheticals about Neitzke v. Williams, Parratt v. Taylor, and other cases.

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.

9,936 later cases cite Denton v. Hernandez; 537 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 Denton v. Hernandez?

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

Superseded by statute

  • The court held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act displaced Denton's abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing frivolousness dismissals and required de novo review under the amended statute.

    McGore v. Wrigglesworth · Sixth Circuit · filed

    In Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733-34, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992), the Supreme Court found that the language of the statute indicated that frivolity was a decision entrusted to the discretion of the court entertaining the pauper petition. Therefore, Supreme Court concluded that a dismissal under § 1915(d) was reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. ... In contrast, § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b) do not contain discretionary language. ... As this court must now ascertain whether the district court properly dismissed the complaint in compliance with § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, we conclude that our determination involves a question of law which requires de novo review.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Denton v. Hernandez 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