Case Citator › Harry Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt Cupp

Harry Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt Cupp

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

Abrogated
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
745 F.2d 1221
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
854 of 854
Citing cases (total)
3,076
Treatment dates
1989
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Franklin v. Murphy is abrogated on other grounds among the reviewed cases: all 854 flagged citations have been processed, and the 1 confirmed treatment is listed below. Neitzke v. Williams displaced Franklin to the extent Franklin treated failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) as sufficient to make an in-forma-pauperis complaint frivolous under former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
More on how this was screened

Franklin's arguable-basis definition, complete-and-obvious-defense applications, exceptional-circumstances counsel rule, and requirement to allow curable pro se pleadings to be amended continue to be applied.

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.

3,076 later cases cite Harry Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt Cupp; 854 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 Harry Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt Cupp?

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

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court abrogated Franklin to the extent it treated failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) as sufficient to make an in-forma-pauperis complaint frivolous under former Section 1915(d).

    Neitzke v. Williams · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, 488 U. S. 816 (1988), filed by those defendants against whom Williams’ claims still stand to decide whether a complaint that fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is necessarily frivolous within the meaning of § 1915(d), a question over which the Courts of Appeals have disagreed. ... We therefore hold that a complaint filed in forma pauperis is not automatically frivolous within the meaning of § 1915(d) because it fails to state a claim. ... Compare Brandon v. District of Columbia Board of Parole, 236 U. S. App. D. C. 155, 159, 734 F. 2d 56, 59 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1127 (1985), with Harris v. Menendez, 817 F. 2d 737, 740 (CA11 1987); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F. 2d 179, 182 (CA5 1985); Franklin, supra, at 1227; Malone v. Colyer, 710 F. 2d 258, 261 (CA6 1983).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Harry Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt Cupp 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