Lockett v. Ericson’s Empirical Analysis
656 F.3d 892 · 2011
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Heck v. Humphrey · Allen v. McCurry · Ayers v. City of Richmond · United States v. Cope · Takahashi v. Board of Trustees of Livingston Union School 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is apparent that the plaintiffs' lawsuit, even if successful, would not necessarily imply the invalidity of Ove and Forest's DUI convictions. Their lawsuit concerns the way in which their blood was drawn. But blood evidence was not introduced against them. No evidence was introduced against them. They pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, respectively. Their convictions derive from their pleas, not from verdicts obtained with supposedly illegal evidence. The validity of their convictions does not in any way depend upon the legality of the blood draws. Conspicuously missing from this case is any contention that Ove and Forest's pleas were illegal, involuntary or without factual bases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our holding in Ove is dispositive in Lockett's case. Lockett pled nolo contendere after the superior court denied his ... suppression motion. He was not tried, and no evidence was introduced against him. Therefore, like the convicted plaintiffs in Ove , Lockett's conviction "derive[s] from [his] plea[ ], not from [a] verdict[ ] obtained with supposedly illegal evidence." "The validity of" Lockett's conviction "does not in any way depend upon the legality" of the search of his home. We therefore hold that Heck does not bar Lockett's § 1983 claim.”
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.