Case Citator › Robert L. Baugh v. Joe Max Taylor Eric Nevelow Perry Evans

Robert L. Baugh v. Joe Max Taylor Eric Nevelow Perry Evans

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

Declined by some courts
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
117 F.3d 197
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
97 of 97
Citing cases (total)
2,543
Treatment dates
2007
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Robert L. Baugh v. Joe Max Taylor, Eric Nevelow, and Perry Evans remains binding Fifth Circuit law, but the Tenth Circuit declined to follow its explanation that the federal statute and appellate rule do not conflict after the rule's 1998 amendment. All 97 flagged citations have been read, and the 1 confirmed treatment is listed below.
More on how this was screened

Both courts permit a party to seek appellate leave to proceed in forma pauperis despite a district court's finding that the appeal was not taken in good faith. The other citing opinions applied Baugh's appeal procedure and written-reasons requirement, or used nearby adverse language about 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.

2,543 later cases cite Robert L. Baugh v. Joe Max Taylor Eric Nevelow Perry Evans; 97 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 Robert L. Baugh v. Joe Max Taylor Eric Nevelow Perry Evans?

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

Declined to follow

  • After the 1998 amendment to appellate Rule 24, the Tenth Circuit rejected Baugh's explanation that the rule and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) do not conflict, while reaching the same result on appellate leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Rolland v. Primesource Staffing, L.L.C. · Tenth Circuit · filed

    We conclude, as did the Sixth Circuit, that the amendment of Rule 24 in 1998 has trumped, at least for now, the effect of the conflicting statutory provision in § 1915(a)(3). ... But see Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 201-02 (5th Cir.1997) (finding no conflict between § 1915(a)(3) and Rule 24(a), thus permitting consideration of Rule 24(a)(5) motions following district court’s certification of lack of good faith).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Robert L. Baugh v. Joe Max Taylor Eric Nevelow Perry Evans 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