Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 213 CONN 289 - McCarthy v. Warden

McCarthy v. Warden’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
2
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

2 district · 80 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably State v. Fagan (2006), Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction (1995)

2 district · 80 state decisions

35019891990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Stovall v. Denno · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Sanders v. United States · Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution Walpole v. Hill

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

  1. “the applicability of res judicata to foreclose relitigation, in a state court habeas corpus action, of constitutional claims regarding prison disciplinary proceedings that were previously adjudicated in a federal civil rights action.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[P]risoners have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in statutorily created good time credits, of which they can be deprived only if appropriate due process requirements are met. . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[u]nique policy considerations must be taken into account in applying the doctrine of res judicata to a constitutional claim raised by a habeas petitioner.”
    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.