Boyd v. Biggers’s Empirical Analysis
31 F.3d 279 · 1994
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Amaker v. Weiner (1999), Abella v. Rubino (1995)
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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. § 1915 · 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 Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Wolff v. McDonnell · Mitchell v. Forsyth
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 122 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 ..., the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]ven a prisoner who has fully exhausted available state remedies has no cause of action under § 1983 unless and until the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.... [A] § 1983 cause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Acts undertaken by the prosecutor in preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in his [sic] role as an advocate for the State, are entitled to the protection of absolute immunity. Those acts must include the professional evaluation of the evidence assembled by the police and the appropriate preparation for its presentation at trial.”
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.