Adkins v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
- Decided
- December 20, 1948
- Docket
- 1M
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,220 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- recognizing that an ability not to be 22 able to pay for oneself and his dependents “the necessities of life” is sufficient — (HC) Jones v. Trate (2023)
- recognizing that an ability not to be able to pay for oneself and his dependents “the 20 necessities of life” is sufficient — (PC) Solomon v. Tapia (2023)
- recognizing that an 10 ability not to be able to pay for oneself and his dependents “the necessities of life” is sufficient — (PC) Leiva v. Zaldivar-Galves (2023)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*333] Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court.
The questions presented chiefly involve the scope and application of the statute which authorizes a citizen to prosecute or defend actions in federal courts “without being required to prepay fees or costs or for the printing of the record in the appellate court . . . upon filing in said court a statement under oath in writing, that because of his poverty he is unable to pay the costs of said suit or action or appeal, or to give security for the same, . . .” [1]
This action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by P. V. Adkins. Mr. Adkins died while the litigation was pending and his wife having been appointed administratrix of his estate was substituted as plaintiff. The original complaint claimed overtime compensation, damages and attorneys’ fees on behalf of Mr. Adkins and twelve other employees of the respondent [2]
Statutes cited
Cite this
Adkins v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.