Rooding v. Peters’s Empirical Analysis
92 F.3d 578 · 1996
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Gutierrez v. Peters (1997), Booker v. Ward (1996)
12 federal appellate ·
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 · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Memphis Community School District v. Stachura · 157 Ill. 2d 484 - Torcasso v. Standard Outdoor Sales, Inc.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under Illinois law, a final judgment in one action acts as a bar to bringing a subsequent action where there are identity of the parties, subject matter, and causes of action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“) Regulations appurtenant to EFAA. Standard Bank defended by arguing that its return was proper, and it counterclaimed for prejudgment interest. 5 On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the district court originally found for NBD, but reversed its decision in light of a clarifying amendment 3 to the relevant Federal Reserve Regulations. The district court also decided that prejudgment interest was appropriate, but did not award the prime rate. Instead it chose a lower rate (the average T-bill rate) because of the absence of bad faith on NBD's part, and because this was a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rooding’s § 1983 claim for damages, challenging the duration of his confinement, is the type of § 1983 claim that would necessarily implicate the validity of his incarceration. Therefore, Rooding’s cause of action under § 1983 did not accrue until he prevailed in the mandamus action-he could not have joined the state habeas/mandamus action with his § 1983 action. Id. at 580-81.”
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.