Stone-Bey v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis
120 F.3d 718 · 1997
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably DeWalt v. Carter (2000), Leamer v. Fauver (2002)
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Heck v. Humphrey · Sandin v. Conner · Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution Walpole v. Hill · Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence ... unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ha[ve] been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We conclude, however, that [plaintiffs] suit, which challenges only his placement in administrative segregation, is not of the type to which it is appropriate to apply Preiser and its progeny. The [Supreme] Court has never deviated from Preiser’s clear line between challenges to the fact or length of custody and challenges to the conditions of confinement. In Edwards , the Court was careful to respect the distinction drawn by Preiser, repeatedly characterizing the plaintiffs claim as one that would “necessarily imply the invalidity of the deprivation of his good-time credits” and therefore hasten his release. Heck , too, observed that the damages action in that ease was in effect an attack on “ ‘the fact or length of confinement.’ ” The Court also did not question the plaintiffs invocation of section 1983 in Sandin , a case in which the underlying prison disciplinary proceeding affected only the plaintiffs conditions of confinement, not the duration of his sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jackson v. Johnson
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.