Case Citator › Melvin P. Deutsch v. United States

Melvin P. Deutsch v. United States

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

Questioned by some courts
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
67 F.3d 1080
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
31 of 31
Citing cases (total)
31
Treatment dates
2018–2020
Questioned by some courts
At least one reviewed court has questioned this case’s reasoning or continued validity. No reviewed court has overruled it. Melvin P. Deutsch v. United States has been questioned on the standard for reviewing dismissals as malicious. All 31 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Two Third Circuit opinions suggested that a 1996 statutory revision might call for review without deference, but neither decided the question. Those treatments are listed below. Later opinions continued to apply Deutsch's standards for frivolous or malicious claims.

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.

31 later cases cite Melvin P. Deutsch v. United States; 31 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 Melvin P. Deutsch v. United States?

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

Questioned

  • The Third Circuit questioned whether the 1996 revision to § 1915 displaced Deutsch's deferential review standard for dismissals as malicious, but did not decide the issue.

    Brown v. City of Philadelphia Office of Human Resources · Third Circuit · filed

    In Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1086 (3d Cir. 1995), decided before a major revision of 18 U.S.C. § 1915 in 1996, we held that significant deference should be given to a district court’s order dismissing a complaint as malicious. ... Even if the statutory revision suggests that we should now review the determination de novo, see McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007), we would still agree with the District Court’s conclusion.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Third Circuit again questioned whether Deutsch's deferential review standard survived the 1996 revision to § 1915, while affirming under either standard.

    Cunningham v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · Third Circuit · filed

    In Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1086 (3d Cir. 1995), decided before a major revision of § 1915 in 1996, we held that significant deference should be given to a district court’s order dismissing a complaint as malicious. Even if the statutory revision suggests that we should review the determination de novo, see McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007), we would still agree with the District Court’s conclusion.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Melvin P. Deutsch v. United States 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