Nonnette v. Small’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “even though success in that action would imply the invalidity of the disciplinary proceeding that caused revocation of his good-time credits.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Martin v. City of Boise · Martin v. City of Boise

2. “affects only former prisoners challenging loss of good-time credits, revocation of parole or similar matters,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Herbert F. Boeckmann, II Gerald Chaleff Rochelle De La Rocha Raymond C. Fisher James G. Fisk Stephen Gavin Maxwell E. Greenberg Dean Hansell Deirdre Hughes Hill Warren Jackson Melanie Lomax Art Mattox Edith Perez Enrique Hernandez Barbara Schlei Robert Talcott Reva Tooley Robert I. Weil Stanley Scheinbaum Michael Yamaki Stephen Yslas Mary Burwell Cooper Ellen M. Fawls Jeffrey Gallagher James Kenneth Hahn Katherine J. Hamilton Richard Helgeson Thomas Hokinson Stuart D. Hotchkiss Helen Annette Keller, Richard Riordan · No. 02-56017

3. “[w]e hold that, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. But if the district court determines that the plaintiffs action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to suit. In another respect, however, our holding sweeps more broadly than the approach respondents had urged. We do not engraft an exhaustion requirement upon § 1983 unless and until the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged invalidated,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 492 F. Supp. 2d 1230 - Ashley v. Sutton · 272 F. Supp. 2d 464 - Mitchell v. Department of Corrections