Citation network
Wilkinson Vs. Dotson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 07, 2005
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2004 Wilkinson V. DotsonSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Et Al. V. DotsonSearch
-
Preiser v. RodriguezSearch
-
s legal door-closing objective. From Preiser to Edwards v. BalisokSearch
-
where success would not necessarily spell immediate or speedier release for the prisoner, e.g., Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
where success would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration, e.g., Heck v. HumphreySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Wilkinson v. DotsonSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Wilkinson V. DotsonSearch
-
No. 03-287 Reginald a. Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Et Al., Petitioners V. WilliamSearch
-
action does not lie and that the prisoner would have to seek relief through a habeas corpus suit. Dotson v. WilkinsonSearch
-
Johnson v. GheeSearch
-
see also Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
and the federal habeas statutes in Preiser v. RodriguezSearch
-
see also Patsy v. BoardSearch
-
In Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
Ibid. Finally, in Edwards v. BalisokSearch
-
Inmates of Orient Correctional Inst. v. OhioSearch
-
to refer not to prison procedures, but to substantive determinations as to the length of confinement. See Muhammad v. CloseSearch
-
See, e.g., Cooper v. PateSearch
-
and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Wilkinson v. DotsonSearch
-
Scalia, J., Concurring Wilkinson V. DotsonSearch
-
s opinion, which in my view reads Heck v. HumphreySearch
-
U. S. 477 (1994), and Edwards v. BalisokSearch
-
that a contrary holding would require us to broaden the scope of habeas relief beyond recognition. Preiser v. RodriguezSearch
-
may invalidate the challenged sentence even though the prisoner remains in custody to serve the others. See Peyton v. RoweSearch
-
Walker v. WainwrightSearch
-
Graham v. BroglinSearch
-
would utterly sever the writ from its common-law roots. Cf. Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
s opinion. Wilkinson v. DotsonSearch
-
Kennedy, J., Dissenting Wilkinson V. DotsonSearch
-
of many parole challenges in federal habeas corpus proceedings. See, e.g. , California Dept. of Corrections v. MoralesSearch
-
Mickens-Thomas v. VaughnSearch
-
Nulph v. FaatzSearch
-
Fender v. ThompsonSearch
-
already allows a habeas court to compel the type of relief Justice Scalia supposes to be unavailable. See Hilton v. BraunskillSearch
-
relate not at all to conditions of confinement but rather to the fact and duration of confinement. See Butterfield v. BailSearch
-
is both misplaced and irrelevant. It is misplaced, because it takes out of context the test employed in Heck v. HumphreySearch
-
U. S. 477 (1994), and in Edwards v. BalisokSearch
-
see also Muhammad v. CloseSearch
-
Petitioners V. WilliamSearch
-
Dotson v. WilkinsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial