Jimmy Walker v. J.T. O'brien, and Joseph W. Finfrock v. Craig A. Hanks’s Empirical Analysis
216 F.3d 626 · 2000
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 176 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Hayward v. Marshall (2010), United States of America v. Calvin Wayne Buckland (2002)
77 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1914 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915A · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Wolff v. McDonnell · Heck v. Humphrey · Sandin v. Conner · Preiser v. Rodriguez
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 176 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Felker leads to the conclusion that when a prisoner begins in the district court, § 2254 and all associated statutory requirements [including COA’s under § 2253, if applicable] apply no matter what statutory label the prisoner has given the case. (Roughly speaking, this makes § 2254 the exclusive vehicle for prisoners in custody pursuant to a state court judgment who wish to challenge anything affecting that custody, because it makes clear that bringing an action under § 2241 will not permit the prisoner to evade the requirements of § 2254.) Indeed, we have held in numerous cases that § 2254 was the correct vehicle for contesting loss of good time credit in prison disciplinary proceedings, and we adhere to those decisions today.””
2 later decisions 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.