Preiser v. Rodriguez’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
2,515 federal appellate · 610 district · 292 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7,154 later decisions (143 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2026 · most notably Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), Wolff v. McDonnell (1974)
2,515 federal appellate · 610 district · 292 state decisions — followed in 38 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedRodriguez v. McGinnis (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Morrissey v. Brewer · Haines v. Kerner · Younger v. Harris · Monroe v. Pape
Cited together with Wolff v. McDonnell · Heck v. Humphrey · Haines v. Kerner · Younger v. Harris · WILWORDING Et Al. v. SWENSON, WARDEN
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 7,154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress has determined that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for state prisoners attacking the validity of the fact or length of their confinement, and that specific determination must override the general terms of § 1983.”
56 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”
54 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If a state prisoner is seeking damages, he is attacking something other than the fact or length of his confinement, and he is seeking something other than immediate or more speedy release — the traditional purpose of habeas corpus. In the case of a damages claim, habeas corpus is not an appropriate or available federal remedy. Accordingly, as petitioners themselves concede, a damages action by a state prisoner could be brought under the Civil Rights Act in federal court without any requirement of prior exhaustion of state remedies.”
46 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hardwick v. Ault · Meadows v. Evans
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.