Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 207 F.3d 907 - Knowlin v. Thompson

Knowlin v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

207 F.3d 907 · 2000

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
May 2023
most recently cited

5 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2023

5 federal appellate ·

90200020102020decided

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 Heck v. Humphrey · Edwards v. Balisok · McBride v. Soos · Renaldo Hernandez David Cerda v. Joliet Police Department Francis Ruettiger Tom Stein · Antonelli v. Foster

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Knowlin will have to prove that he suffered some deprivation of liberty greater than that which he would have suffered through extradition in full compliance with the UCEA. That showing, in turn, would necessarily imply the invalidity of his Wisconsin parole revocation, which Heck instructs cannot be shown through a § 1983 suit. Heck therefore bars the instant suit.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is irrelevant that Knowlin, in his complaint, alleges only that the defendants denied him a procedure guaranteed by federal law; he does not allege that he was innocent of the charges in the demanding state or was otherwise not extraditable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Knowlin cannot prevail in his claim based on the denial of an opportunity to test the facial validity of the extradition demand through habeas proceedings absent a showing that he was not, in fact, extraditable through proper procedures.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.