Major Harden v. George E. Pataki’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “[I]n [Justice Souter’s] concurring opinion in Spencer , joined by Justices O’Con-nor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, he explained that Heck should be read as permitting a prisoner to “bring a § 1983 action establishing the unconstitutionality of a conviction or confinement without being bound to satisfy a favorable-termination requirement that it would be impossible as a matter of law for him to satisfy” because a habeas claim would be unavailable under the circumstances, for instance, to a prisoner who was released while his or her petition was pending. Id. at 21, 118 S.Ct. at 990 . Otherwise, Heck would “deny any federal forum for claiming a deprivation of federal rights to those who cannot first obtain a favorable state ruling.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 500 , 114 S.Ct. at 2379 (Souter, J., concurring). In her separate concurring opinion, Justice Ginsburg indicated that she had come to agree with Justice Souter’s reasoning: “Individuals without recourse to the habeas statute because they are not ‘in custody’ ... fit within § 1983’s ‘broad reach.’” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 21 , 118 S.Ct. at 990 . In his dissent, Justice Stevens added that, “[g]iven the Court’s holding that petitioner does not have a remedy under the habeas statute, it is perfectly clear ... that he may bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .” Id. at 25 n. 8, 118 S.Ct. at 992 n. 8. Thus, “five justices hold the view that, where federal habeas corpus is not available to address constitutional wrongs, § 1983 must be.” Jenkins v. ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Sean P. Reilly v. Guelsy M. Herrera · 137 F. App'x 285 - John Anthony Vickers v. Robin M. Donahue

2. “second reason” the favorable-termination requirement did not apply was “because [if] federal habeas corpus is not available to a person extradited in violation of his or her federally protected rights ... § 1983 must be.” Id. at 1299. The Eleventh Circuit reasoned that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 630 F. Supp. 2d 1368 - Domotor v. Wennet

3. “that Heck does not bar most § 1983 damages claims based on improper extradition”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Weilburg v. Shapiro