§Why CasetextPricing

Tinsley et al v. Flanagan et al

MOTION to Appoint Next Friends Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17

15 Cited authorities

  1. Whitmore v. Arkansas

    495 U.S. 149 (1990)   Cited 3,010 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a third party does not have "standing to challenge the validity of a death sentence imposed on a capital defendant who has elected to forgo his right of appeal"

  2. Davis v. Walker

    745 F.3d 1303 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 136 times
    Holding that a stay in proceedings predicated on a plaintiff being restored to competency was both lengthy and indefinite, if not infinite

  3. Coal. of Clergy, Lawyers, Prof. v. Bush

    310 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 140 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Whitmore test should be understood to require a significant relationship between the would-be next friend and the real party in interest

  4. T.W. ex rel. Enk v. Brophy

    124 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 1997)   Cited 141 times
    Recognizing as a matter of practice that "it is usually [a minor's representative] who . . . take the initiative in suing on the child's behalf"

  5. Gardner by Gardner v. Parson

    874 F.2d 131 (3d Cir. 1989)   Cited 109 times
    Holding that a guardian ad litem is "absolutely immune in exercising functions . . . in which the guardian acts as an actual functionary or arm of the court."

  6. Carson P. ex Rel. Foreman v. Heineman

    240 F.R.D. 456 (D. Neb. 2007)   Cited 53 times
    Finding no private right of action under the CWA

  7. Sam M. ex Rel. Elliott v. Carcieri

    608 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2010)   Cited 42 times
    Holding Rule 17(c) authorized appointment of Next Friend to represent minor plaintiffs whose "relatives have not moved to represent them in federal court" and where "there [was] no indication that they are willing or able to represent them"

  8. Massie ex Rel. Kroll v. Woodford

    244 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 46 times
    Holding the next friend must prove he or she "has some significant relationship with, and is truly dedicated to the best interests of, the petitioner"

  9. Sanchez-Velasco v. Sec. of Dept. of Corr

    287 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir. 2002)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that state court's competency determination was presumptively correct where there was no evidence that inmate's mental condition had changed since the competency determination

  10. Ad Hoc Committee of Concerned Teachers ex rel. Minor & Under-Age Students Attending Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School District v. Greenburgh # 11 Union Free School District

    873 F.2d 25 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 53 times
    Upholding district court's dismissal of action pursuant to Rule 12(b) for lack of standing

  11. Rule 17 - Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity; Public Officers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 17   Cited 9,754 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Providing that, for this type of entity, "[c]apacity to sue or be sued is determined . . . by the law of the state where the court is located"