Legal Opinion

Bolt v. Reynolds Metal Co.

District Court, W.D. Kentucky

Decided December 5, 1941PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MILLER, District Judge.

The plaintiff moved the court that he be allowed to file and prosecute this action in forma pauperis under the provisions of Section 832, Title 28 U.S.C.A. His affidavit stating the necessary facts with- respect to his own insolvent condition is filed in support of the motion.

This Court has for some time followed the rule laid down by the Circuit Court of Appeals of this Circuit in United States v. Ross, 6 Cir., 298 F. 64, 33 A.L.R. 728, which holds that where a suit is instituted in forma pauperis and the plaintiff’s attorney is employed under a contingent fee…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Newport Rolling Mill Co. v. HallCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
  2. Boyle v. Great Northern Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington · 1894
  3. United States ex rel. Randolph v. RossCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1924
  4. Feil v. Wabash R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1902
  5. Phillips v. Louisville & N. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Alabama · 1907

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Adkins v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API