Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 633 F.2d 1126 - Delaney v. Giarrusso

Delaney v. Giarrusso’s Empirical Analysis

633 F.2d 1126 · 1981

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
January 2001
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently January 2001 · most notably Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village (1984), Richardson v. Fleming (1981)

31 federal appellate · 1 district ·

330198119902000decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Payton v. New York · Allen v. McCurry · Stone v. Powell · Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States

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

  1. “[T]he propriety of a prisoner’s § 1983 action is not to be determined solely on the basis of the relief sought, i.e., monetary damages as opposed to relief from confinement, but instead the federal court must examine the basis of the complaint and determine whether the claim, if proven, would factually undermine or conflict with validity of the state court conviction which resulted in the prisoner’s confinement. If the basis of the § 1983 claim does go to the constitutionality of the state court conviction, the exclusive remedy is habeas corpus relief with the comity inspired prerequisite of exhaustion of state remedies.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Although habeas corpus relief is the exclusive initial cause of action where the basis of the § 1983 claim goes to the constitutionality of the state court conviction, where the plaintiff is no longer in custody, habeas corpus is unavailable and, therefore, the ... doctrine of exhaustion presents no barrier to a § 1983 suit.”
    1 later decision 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.