Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 F.3d 231 - Sheldon v. Hundley

Sheldon v. Hundley’s Empirical Analysis

83 F.3d 231 · 1996

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
March 2016
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Clarke v. Stalder (1998), Torres v. Fauver (2002)

7 federal appellate · 2 district ·

130199620002010decided

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

Relies on Heck v. Humphrey · Sandin v. Conner · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Hebert v. Brown · Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co.

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

  1. “We hold that, in 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 a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Sheldon's First Amendment claims are so entangled with the propriety of the disciplinary result, which triggered the loss of good-time credits, that ruling in Sheldon's favor on First Amendment grounds would necessarily imply the invalidity of the disciplinary result and the lengthened sentence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “prisoners who challenge disciplinary rulings that do not lengthen their sentence are probably outside the habeas statute and able to seek damages under § 1983 without showing favorable termination”
    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.