Smith v. Hood’s Empirical Analysis
900 F.3d 180 · 2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (§ 201 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Heck v. Humphrey · Youngberg v. Romeo Ex Rel. Romeo · City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons · Wilkinson Director Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al. v. Dotson et al. · United States v. Georgia
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is 'analytical and fact intensive' and requires the court to consider the specifics of the individual claim. W conduct this analysis by assessing whether a claim is 'temporally and conceptually distinct' from the related conviction and sentence. We ask whether the claims are 'necessarily inconsistent' with the conviction, or whether they can 'coexist' with the conviction or sentence without 'calling [it] into question.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. Hood“[d]etermining whether a particular claim is barred by Heck,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. Hood
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.