Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 949 F.2d 1096 - Herrera v. Harkins

Herrera v. Harkins’s Empirical Analysis

949 F.2d 1096 · 1991

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
February 2015
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Russ v. Uppah (1992), Olson v. Hart (1992)

15 federal appellate · 1 district ·

170199120002010decided

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. § 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 · Haines v. Kerner · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Hall v. Bellmon

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

  1. “challenged] a constitutional defect in an individual parole hearing, where the remedy lies in providing a new parole hearing, [he] must file a habeas peti tion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “seek[s] injunctive or declaratory relief to correct constitutionally defective parole procedures, section 1983 remains available.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Declaratory and Injunctive relief ordering the Defendants to stop denying Plaintiff Parole Recommendations based on”
    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.