28 U.S.C. § 1654

41 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Chapman v. United States
  553 F.2d 886· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-08 ·cited 85×
  A criminal defendant's demand to represent himself pro se must be honored as timely if made before the jury is selected, absent an affirmative showing that it was a tactic to secure delay.
• United States v. Trunnell Levett Price
  474 F.2d 1223· 9th Cir.· 1973-03-05 ·cited 71×
  The court held that a district court must exercise its discretion in ruling on preindictment motions for recordation of grand jury proceedings, and that the mandatory sentencing language of 18 U.S.C. § 2114 does not preclude consideration of youthful offender provisions.
• Sanders v. Honorable Dan M. Russell
  401 F.2d 241· 5th Cir.· 1968-09-18 ·cited 60×
  A district court rule limiting pro hac vice appearances of out-of-state attorneys in non-fee generating civil rights cases is invalid because it unreasonably restricts a litigant's right to counsel of choice and contravenes congressional intent.
• United States v. Alf Hill, Jr.
  526 F.2d 1019· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-15 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for continuance and independent psychiatric examination, nor did it err in denying the request for hybrid representation or in its handling of the voir dire and impeachment evidence.
• Int'l Elecs. Corp. & Electro Motive Corp. v. Flanzer
  527 F.2d 1288· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-22 ·cited 52×
  A law firm should not be disqualified from representing a former partner who is a party defendant, even if he will be a witness, as the rationales for the lawyer-witness rule do not apply. The court also affirmed the denial of a motion to disqualify opposing counsel.
• Weber v. Garza
  570 F.2d 511· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a non-attorney cannot file a habeas corpus petition as a "next friend" without establishing a satisfactory reason why the detained person cannot sign, and cannot engage in the unauthorized practice of law.
• Nathansen v. City of Ocala
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-06 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a pro se litigant may receive electronic notices of filing via email, but a non-attorney assistant cannot receive such notices on their behalf.
• Sanchez v. United States
  311 F.2d 327· 9th Cir.· 1962-12-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence, denying a continuance, or refusing to discharge counsel, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Lenear Charles Dunlap
  577 F.2d 867· 4th Cir.· 1978-06-01 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a defendant's waiver of the right to be present at a pre-trial hearing was sufficiently established, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a request to proceed pro se after trial had commenced.
• United States v. Sacco
  563 F.2d 552· 2d Cir.· 1977-10-05 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, refusing to set aside convictions due to alleged wiretap taint, or denying Sacco a hearing after his escape and failure to appear.
• G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph OAT Corp.
  871 F.2d 648· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the magistrate abused his discretion by demanding an executive with full settlement authority attend a pretrial conference, as no rule or doctrine imposes a duty to bargain in good faith over settlement.
• S. Stern & Co. v. The United States
  331 F.2d 310· C.C.P.A.· 1963-12-12 ·cited 14×
  A customs brokerage partnership, acting solely in a representative capacity for a principal, cannot appear and manage its case through a lay partner, as this constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
• United States v. Oakey
  853 F.2d 551· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a defendant's mid-trial request for hybrid representation was properly denied as untimely and ambiguous, and that the joinder of tax evasion charges with racketeering and mail fraud charges was permissible.
• In re LAS Colinas Dev. Corp. v. Walter E. Heller & Co. OF Puerto RICO & Walter E. Heller & Co.
  585 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1978-09-21 ·cited 12×
  A nonlawyer president and majority stockholder of a corporation cannot represent the corporation in a Chapter XI bankruptcy proceeding, as this right is limited to licensed attorneys.
• United States v. Montgomery
  529 F.2d 1404· 10th Cir.· 1976-02-11 ·cited 12×
  A voluntary guilty plea precludes a defendant from later asserting that their right to self-representation was infringed.
• Reshard v. Britt
  819 F.2d 1573· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 11×
  A nonlawyer personal representative cannot litigate a wrongful death action pro se in federal court.
• United States v. Wilson
  666 F.2d 1241· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the defendant was denied his right to self-representation by being forced to choose between proceeding unprepared or with counsel.
• Zambrano v. City OF Tustin
  885 F.2d 1473· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that sanctions for mere negligence in failing to join the district court bar are improper, and attorneys' fees can only be awarded for bad faith or willful disobedience.
• Eleazar Herrera-Venegas v. Sanchez-Rivera
  681 F.2d 41· 1st Cir.· 1982-06-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while prisoners have a right to seek legal assistance from other inmates, this does not extend to representation in litigation by non-party laypersons.
• Jennifer and Monica Osei-Afriyie v. The Med. Coll. OF Pa. & Stull
  937 F.2d 876· 3d Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 8×
  A non-attorney parent cannot represent minor children in federal court; the children's claims are vacated and remanded for potential appointment of counsel or dismissal. The parent's own claims are affirmed as time-barred.
• Tse-Ming Cheung, M.D. v. Youth Orchestra Found. OF Buffalo, Inc.
  906 F.2d 59· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-21 ·cited 7×
  A non-attorney parent cannot represent their minor child pro se in federal court; the parent must retain counsel or request appointed counsel.
• Effie Mae Lewis v. Lenc-Smith Mfg. Co.
  784 F.2d 829· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-27 ·cited 6×
  A non-lawyer cannot represent a party in federal court, and a pro se litigant must sign their own notice of appeal.
• Meeker v. Kercher
  782 F.2d 153· 10th Cir.· 1986-01-22 ·cited 6×
  A guardian ad litem is not acting under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a parent cannot represent minor children in federal court if the parent is not an attorney.
• United States v. Marthaler
  571 F.2d 1104· 9th Cir.· 1978-02-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant was not entitled to an indictment and jury trial for criminal contempt and that the time provided for his defense was reasonable.
• United States ex rel. Jose Juan Soto v. United States
  504 F.2d 1339· 3d Cir.· 1974-10-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant's statutory right to proceed pro se is waived if not asserted, and the trial court is not obligated to advise a defendant of this right. It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointed counsel's motion to withdra
• United States v. Uhrig
  443 F.2d 239· 7th Cir.· 1971-05-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for using the mails in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, and that the defendant's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent.
• Eitel v. Verla Sue Holland
  787 F.2d 995· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 5×
  A judge is immune from damages for judicial acts, and the right to self-representation in civil cases is statutory, not constitutional. Younger abstention does not apply to claims against private parties in completed state proceedings where no important state policies are implica
• Wiggins v. Estelle
  691 F.2d 213· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-08 ·cited 5×
• United States v. Revie
  834 F.2d 1198· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding the appellant guilty of criminal contempt for willfully disobeying a show cause order, and that the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction to conduct proceedings to enforce its turnover order pending appe
• Muhammad v. Douglas
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-05-15
  A non-lawyer trustee cannot represent a trust in court, even if proceeding pro se.
• Smith v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-30
  A federal district court denied a motion to vacate Smith's 140-year sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because the motion was filed by an unauthorized non-attorney third party rather than by Smith himself or his attorney. The court held that non-attorneys cannot proceed on behalf of
• Jackson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-03-28
  A non-attorney parent cannot represent their minor child pro se in federal court, even in social security benefit cases.
• Both v. Ashby
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-16
  The court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting leave to amend due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and improper pro se representation of an LLC.
• Jones v. The Lamar Co., L.L.C.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-13
  The court held that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they invite review and rejection of state court judgments.
• Smiley v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Pinellas County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-23
  The court denied the inmate's motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and denied an inmate's request to appear as amicus curiae.
• Laguille-Brugman v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-12-06
  A pro se litigant cannot represent the interests of an estate or other survivors, and must retain counsel to do so.
• Gierbolini v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-02-28
  A non-attorney cannot represent another party, including a minor child, in federal court, and a non-lawyer's assistance in drafting legal documents constitutes the unlicensed practice of law.
• Enright v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-01-25
  A trust must be represented by an attorney, and a patently frivolous complaint lacking jurisdiction will be dismissed.
• Williams v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-09-16
  The court recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because the appeal was untimely, filed by an unauthorized representative, lacked a proper affidavit of indigency, and was not taken in good faith.