Cohen v. Longshore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Spencer , a majority of the Court affirmed the dismissal for mootness of a habeas claim brought by a petitioner who was no longer in custody because the petitioner had failed to show that he suffered continuing collateral consequences from his parole revocation following his release. [523 U.S.] at 14-16, 118 S.Ct. 978 In a concurrence, four Justices articulated an additional reason why this result was correct — “a former prisoner, no longer ‘in custody,’ may 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,” and thus “the answer to Spencer’s argument that his habeas claim cannot be moot because Heck bars him from relief under § 1983 is that Heck has no such effect.” Id. at 21, 118 S.Ct. 978 (Souter, J., concurring). Justice Stevens dissented from the majority opinion, concluding that the case should not be moot based on the petitioner’s interest in vindicating his reputation. Id. at 22-25 , 118 S.Ct. 978 (Stevens, J., dissenting). He agreed with the concurring Justices, however, that a petitioner without a remedy under the habeas statute may bring an action under § 1983. Id. at 25 n. 8, 118 S.Ct. 978 . After discussing the Court’s state- ■ ments in Heck and Spencer , the Fourth Circuit explained that its decision to follow the reasoning of the five-justice plurality in Spencer was informed by equitable”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 36 F. Supp. 3d 1067 - Reid v. Pautler

2. “at least where [an] inability [to obtain habeas relief] is not due to the petitioner's own lack of diligence” (emphasis added)). 11 . Because of inadequate briefing by the parties on this issue, we do not address whether a Heck bar properly applies to a person formerly in custody, even if the person could have practicably sought habeas relief. We simply note that the binding precedent from the Supreme Court and in this Circuit does not clearly impose a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Covey v. Assessor of Ohio County

3. “Although we generally review for abuse of discretion a district court's denial of leave to amend a complaint, when this 'denial is based on a determination that amendment would be futile, our review for abuse of discretion includes de novo review of the legal basis for the finding of futility.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States ex rel. Polukoff v. St. Mark's Hosp.