153 Pa. Commw. 599 - Heinly v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 2018
21 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 Kentucky v. Graham · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · West v. Atkins · City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle · Rizzo v. Goode
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] state may not lessen the availability of Section 1983 by taking any action purportedly frustrating its application. In Howlett v. Rose, [citation omitted] ... the United States Supreme Court disabused states of any notion that they or its courts could take any action that would alter the parameters of Section 1983 ... Conduct by persons acting under color of state law which is wrongful under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 ... cannot be immunized by state law. A construction of the federal statute which permitted a state immunity defense to have controlling effect would transmute a basic guarantee into an illusory promise; and the supremacy clause of the constitution insures that the proper construction may be enforced.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Owens v. Shannon“[A] state may not lessen the availability of Section 1983 by taking any action purportedly frustrating its application. In Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 , 110 S.Ct. 2430 , 110 L.Ed.2d 332 , ... the United States Supreme Court disabused states of any notion that they or its courts could take any action that would alter the parameters of Section 1983.... As to why state sovereign immunity laws or doctrine cannot foreclose Section 1983 actions brought , in state courts, the Supreme Court reasoned: ... A construction of the federal statute which permitted a state immunity defense to have controlling effect would transmute a basic guarantee into an illusory promise ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“under which courts are presumed to know the law and plaintiffs need only plead facts constituting the cause of action and the courts will take judicial notice of the statute involved.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.