Del Raine v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis
826 F.2d 698 · 1987
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Gray v. Lacke (1989), Wilkins v. May (1989)
55 federal appellate · 10 district ·
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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Kentucky v. Graham · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“remanded the case with directions that the district court consider Del Raine's request for expungement and damages”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“are best explained not by 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ... but by the inseparability of the time period itself from some (though not necessarily all) other provisions of a state’s limitations law. See Hemmings v. Barian, 822 F.2d 688 , 691 (7th Cir.1987). The actual generosity of a statute of limitations depends not only on the nominal period within which suit must be brought but on provisions allowing that period to be extended for various reasons, so that if the federal court borrows just the period it may in fact be giving plaintiffs more or less time than the state that enacted the borrowed statute would have thought appropriate in the circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The source of the mistake is in the dual nature of many prisoner suits, including this one. Suppose ...that a state prisoner wants (1) to be released from custody because the custody violates his federal constitutional rights and (2) to receive damages for the time he has spent in this illegal custody. The first part of the suit would be a suit for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 .... The second part of the suit would be a tort suit under ... 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .”
2 later decisions 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.