Richards v. Bellmon’s Empirical Analysis
941 F.2d 1015 · 1991
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably Hill v. Reynolds (1991), United States v. Furman (1997)
19 federal appellate · 2 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. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Haines v. Kerner · Wolff v. McDonnell · Gerstein v. Pugh
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.
“[A] challenge to the fact of conviction or confinement, or the duration of confinement, is cognizable only under the habeas statute with its requirement of exhaustion of state remedies. On the other hand, a challenge to the conditions of confinement is cognizable under § 1983, which does not have a similar exhaustion requirement. Thus, although § 1983 is not available when a state prisoner seeks a release from or reduction of confinement, it is available when a prisoner seeks (1) to challenge the conditions of his confinement or (2) a declaratory judgment as a predicate to (a) an award of money damages or (b) prospective injunctive relief.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A single complaint may seek relief partly under § 2254 and partly under § 1983.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
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.