« ForrigeFortsett »
Page Williamson v. United States
1007 Willis; Bentley v.
1038 Willis v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
919 Willmschen v. United States.
1083 Wilson, In re
812 Wilson v. Armontrout
942 Wilson; Aslanian v.
956 Wilson; Cal. Bd. of Admin., Public Employees' Ret. System v. 1034 Wilson v. Consolidated Publishing Co.
1024 Wilson v. Del Monte ...,
984 Wilson v. First Gibraltar Bank, FSB
846 Wilson; Owens-Illinois, Inc. v.
973 Wilson v. South Carolina
846 Wilson v. United States
892,896,900,1006 Wilson County; Bassler v.
824 Wilton; McGovern v.
873 Wilusz; Phillipe v.
845 Windham; Quiroz v.
819 Winer v. Winer ..
861,1029 Winfield v. Carpenter
839 Wint v. United States ..
1062 Winters v. Iowa State Univ.
923,1016 Winters v. United States
826,874 Wisconsin; Frederick v.
879 Wisconsin; Jenkins v.
1002 Wisconsin; Kirsch v.
987 Wisconsin v. Lac Du Flambeau Band, Lake Super. Chippewas 829 Wisconsin; Martin v.
943 Wisconsin v. Mitchell
1033 Wisconsin; O’Rear v.
873 Wisconsin; Perez v.
957 Wisconsin Bd., Attorney's Professional Responsibility; Heilprin v. 972 Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue; Anderson v.
971 Wise v. Keane
855 Wishbone, Inc. v. Eppinger
869 Witherspoon v. United States
1038 Woerner v. Brunt
1002 Wofford v. United States
989 Wolens; American Airlines, Inc. v.
803 Wolf, In re
995,1045 Wolfe v. Teamsters
1060 Wolf-Lenkin Ltd. Partnership; Curtis v.
1050 Wolpoff & Abramson v. Carroll
905 Womble v. United States
Wood v. United States
963 Woodall; El Paso v.
908 Woodard v. Toombs
885 Woodrich; Meckley v.
883 Woodruff; Herron v.
1059 Woods v. Dunlop Tire Corp.
1053 Woods v. Florida ..
890 Woods v. Kansas
850 Woods v. Union Pacific R. Co.
865 Wooldridge v. Wilder
891 Wooten; Hernandez v.
1055 Word v. United States
874 Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd.; Verdugo v.
1005 Workers Compensation Appeals Bd., Mendocino Cty.; Spaletta v. 853,1029 Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. of Cal.; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v.
957 Workman v. Oklahoma
890 Worstell v. United States
849 W. R. Grace & Co.; Lowry v.
909 Wright v. Alabama
844 Wright v. Bettmann
858 Wright; Bunch v.
1030 Wright v. Crotty.
858 Wright v. Homestake Mining Co.
1004 Wright v. Illinois
1004 Wright v. Indiana
1001 Wright; Jones v.
810,971,1085 Wright v. Keane
988 Wright v. Louisiana
922 Wright v. Singletary
849 Wright; Stamper v.
1087 Wright v. United States
856 Wright v. Van Boening
892 W. S. v. R. W. ...
880 WTLK TV 14 Rome/Atlanta, Demsey 2.
1060 Wyley v. United States .
963 Wyoming; Harvey v.
1022 Wyoming; Nebraska v.
805,938,996,1018 Wyoming County Prison Bd.; Huffsmith v.
809 Xerox Corp.; Amerinet, Inc. v.
1080 Xerox Corp.; Standring v.
1000 Xidex Corp.; Erath v.
1034 Xytec Plastics, Inc.; Ropak Corp. v.
818 Yagow v. United States
Page Yamaha Corp. of America v. United States
1078 Yarbrow v. United States
925 Yaskin; Ampro Fisheries, Inc. v.
954 Yates v. Garner .
885,992 Yeager v. Camp
1049 Yellow Cab Metro, Inc.; McDonald v.
810,996 Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. United States
802 Ylst; Blumberg v.
1036 Ylst; De La Cruz v.
843 Ylst; Rose v.
897 Yordan v. Singletary
1084 Yorktown; McGovern v.
819 Young v. Nebraska
977 Young v. Paskett
1007 Young v. State Univ. of N. Y.
1035 Young v. United States
945,1068 Young v. Zenon.
923 Youngs v. Texas State Dept. of Highways and Public Transp. 1084 Youngstown v. Martin
1034 Yu v. United States
1048 Yul Yu v. United States
1048 Zabriskie, In re
983,1076 Zafiro v. United States
534 Zagnojny v. United States
902 Zaharia v. Municipal Court, Aurora, Colo.
1051 Zaken; Boerer v.
975 Zal v. Steppe
1021 Zamudio v. Card
862 Zant; Dobbs v.
357 Zapata v. United States
976 Zenni v. Kirsner
824 Zenon; Durham v.
850 Zenon; Young v.
923 Zichko v. Taggart
838 Ziebarth v. Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul
988,1088 Ziegler, In re
952 Ziegler v. Champion
881 Zimmer v. Minnesota
1051 Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist.
813,1018 Zoecon Corp.; Doughty v.
985 Zona; Lincoln Log Homes, Inc. v.
998 Zuleta v. United States
928 Zulke; Garman v.
901 Zych v. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1992
MARTIN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF
APPEALS ET AL.
ON MOTION OF PETITIONER FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
No. 92–5584. Decided November 2, 1992*
Since this Court's Rule 39.8 was invoked in November 1991 to first deny
pro se petitioner Martin in forma pauperis status, he has filed 11 petitions for certiorari, all but one of which have been demonstrably
frivolous. Held: Martin is denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant
cases, and the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from him in noncriminal matters unless he pays the required docketing fee and submits his petition in compliance with this Court's Rule 33. Martin is a notorious abuser of the Court's certiorari process, and consideration of his repetitious and frivolous petitions does not allow the Court to allocate its resources in a way that promotes the
interests of justice. Motions denied.
Pro se petitioner James L. Martin requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to our Rule 39.8. Martin is al
*Together with No. 92–5618, Martin v. McDermott et al., also on motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.