Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 997 F.2d 355 - Heck v. Humphrey

Heck v. Humphrey’s Empirical Analysis

997 F.2d 355 · 1993

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably Heck v. Humphrey (1994), Wallace v. Kato (2007)

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

300199320002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. Tomanio · Owens v. Okure · Hardin v. Straub · Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. · Suslick v. Rothschild Securities Corp.

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

  1. “[A] body of state tolling law that lacks a provision for equitable tolling is inconsistent with the provision of a complete federal remedy under section 1983 and therefore is overridden by the federal doctrine.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “essential to the vindication of federal rights,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If, regardless of the relief sought, the plaintiff [in a federal civil rights action] is challenging the legality of his conviction, 2 so that if he won his case the state would be obliged to release him even if he hadn't sought that relief, the suit is classified as an application for habeas corpus and the plaintiff must exhaust his state remedies, on pain of dismissal if he fails to do so.”
    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.