Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 F.3d 1339 - Williams v. Hill

Williams v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

74 F.3d 1339 · 1996

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
July 2018
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 21 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Lyndon H. Larouche, Jr. v. Donald L. Fowler (1998), Lora-Pena v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2008)

16 federal appellate · 21 district ·

240199620002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Heck v. Humphrey · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Clark v. Library of Congress · Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh

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

  1. “[ I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Heck does not rest on statutory language, legislative history, comity, or any other consideration unique to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . It rests instead on the need for finality of criminal convictions and on the analogy between actions under § 1983 and the common law of malicious prosecution, which barred the suit unless the criminal prosecution ended in the plaintiffs favor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “have been assimilated in most ... respects.”
    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.