Citation network
Heck Vs. Humphrey
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 18, 1994
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 477 (1994) October Term, 1993 Syllabus Heck V. HumphreySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
inquiry, see Carey v. PiphusSearch
-
allegation and proof of termination of the prior criminal proceeding in favor of the accused, see, e. g., Carpenter v. NutterSearch
-
and has been disinclined to expand opportunities for collateral attack on criminal convictions, see, e. g., Parke v. RaleySearch
-
the Seventh Circuit was pending, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, Heck v. StateSearch
-
Patsy v. BoardSearch
-
actions is a matter of state law. See Migra v. WarrenSearch
-
contrast, requires that state prisoners first seek redress in a state forum.3 See Rose v. LundySearch
-
U. S. 509 (1982). Preiser v. RodriguezSearch
-
Before addressing that question, we respond to petitioner's contention that it has already been answered, in Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
if Wolff had answered the question we would not have expressly reserved it 10 years later, as we did in Tower v. GloverSearch
-
in Wolff did not call into question the lawfulness of the plaintiff's continuing confinement. See Fulford v. KleinSearch
-
Memphis Community School Dist. v. StachuraSearch
-
Id., at 887-888 (footnotes omitted). See also Roberts v. ThomasSearch
-
Carpenter v. NutterSearch
-
for finality and consistency and has generally declined to expand opportunities for collateral attack, see Parke v. RaleySearch
-
Rooker v. FidelitySearch
-
the prior proceeding was without probable cause. But this was not an absolute rule in all jurisdictions, see Goodrich v. WarnerSearch
-
Richter v. KosterSearch
-
must be exceptions to the rule in cases involving circumstances such as fraud, perjury, or mistake of law, see Burt v. PlaceSearch
-
Witham v. GowenSearch
-
Olson v. NealSearch
-
Neher v. DobbsSearch
-
Neb. 863, 868, 66 N. W. 864, 865 (1896) (collecting cases). In Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Butchers'Search
-
but some extortionate perversion of lawfully initiated process to illegitimate ends. See, e. g., Donohoe Const. Co. v. MountSearch
-
in an action for abuse of process than in one for malicious prosecution. This limitation is illustrated by McGann v. AllenSearch
-
a peace officer from effecting a lawful arrest. (This is a common definition of that offense. See People v. PeacockSearch
-
s still-outstanding conviction. Because of doctrines like independent source and inevitable discovery, see Murray v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 487 U. S. 533 , 539 (1988), and especially harmless error, see Arizona v. FulminanteSearch
-
that the search was unlawful, but that it caused him actual, compensable injury, see Memphis Community School Dist. v. StachuraSearch
-
action. See Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
an issue that also could be grounds for relief in a state-court challenge to his conviction or sentence. Cf. Tower v. GloverSearch
-
actions, see Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y. v. TomanioSearch
-
Carnes v. AtkinsSearch
-
courts can, and indeed should, be guided by the federal policies reflected in congressional enactments. Cf. Moragne v. StatesSearch
-
Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U. S. 375 , 390-391 (1970). See also United States v. MendozaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial