green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.0 score
“it is irrelevant that disclaims any intention of challenging his conviction; if he makes allegations that are inconsistent with the conviction's having been valid, heck kicks in and bars his civil suit”
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Tinsley v. Town of Framingham
it is irrelevant that disclaims any intention of challenging his conviction; if he makes allegations that are inconsistent with the conviction's having been valid, heck kicks in and bars his civil suit
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Driessen v. United States
Grp. v. United States, 104 F.3d at 1325); see also Flexfab, LLC, v. United States, 424 F.3d 1254, 1265 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (citing Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259, 1278 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 910 , 123 S.Ct. 2246 , 156 L.Ed.2d 125 (2003)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Seven Resorts, Inc. v. United States
Grp. v. United States, 104 F.3d at 1325 ); see also Flexfab, L.L.C. v. United States, 424 F.3d 1254, 1265 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259, 1278 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en bane), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 910 , 123 S.Ct. 2246 , 156 L.Ed.2d 125 (2003)); Mastrolia v. United States, 91 Fed.Cl. 369, 384 (2010) (citing Flexfab, L.L.C. v. United States, 424 F.3d at 1265 ); Anderson v. United States, 344 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed.Cir.2003) (citing Cal. Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vasko v. United States
Grp. v. United States, 104 F.3d at 1325); see also Flexfab, L.L.C. v. United States, 424 F.3d 1254, 1265 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (citing Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259, 1278 (Fed.Cir.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 910 , 123 S.Ct. 2246 , 156 L.Ed.2d 125 (2003)); Anderson v. United States, 344 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed.Cir.2003) (citing Cal. Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Keehn v. United States
Grp. v. United States, 104 F.3d at 1325); see also Flexfab, L.L.C. v. United States, 424 F.3d 1254, 1265 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259, 1278 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 910 , 123 S.Ct. 2246 , 156 L.Ed.2d 125 (2003)); Mastrolia v. United States, 91 Fed.Cl. 369, 384 (2010) (citing Flexfab, L.L.C. v. United States, 424 F.3d at 1265 ); Anderson v. United States, 344 F.3d 1343 , 1353 (Fed.Cir.2003) (citing Cal. Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Horn & Associates, Inc. v. United States
Defendant responds, “[b]ecause the CICA requires agencies to evaluate competitive proposals based solely upon the factors specified in the solicitation, NASA could not have ‘ratified,’ the purchase order to apply to anything but what was set forth in the solicitation.” Defendant also argues that NASA “could ratify the scope of work to include all contracts only if the original agreement was invalid or unauthorized.” The concept of ratification requires that a superior official “have authority to ratify, knowledge of a subordinate’s unauthorized act, and then must confirm, adopt…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Goldings v. United States
Grp. v. United States, 104 F.3d at 1325); see also Flexfab, L.L.C. v. United States, 424 F.3d 1254, 1265 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259, 1278 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 910 , 123 S.Ct. 2246 , 156 L.Ed.2d 125 (2003)); Mastrolia v. United States, 91 Fed.Cl. 369, 384 (2010) (citing Flexfab, L.L.C. v. United States, 424 F.3d at 1265 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dureiko v. United States
An implied-in-fact contract is an agreement “‘founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding.’ ” Trauma Serv., Group v. United States, 104 F.3d 1321, 1326 (1997) (quoting Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417, 424 , 116 S.Ct. 981 , 134 L.Ed.2d 47 (1996)) (quoting Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. United States, 261 U.S. 592, 597 , 58 Ct.Cl. 709 , 43 S.Ct. 425 , 67 L.Ed. 816 (1923)); see also Schism v. United States, …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Holland
v.
United States
v.
United States
02-10513.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 2, 2003.
Published
Citer courts: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial… (1)
Holland
v.
United States.
No. 02-10513.
Supreme Court of United States.
June 2, 2003.
1
Appeal from the C. A. 11th Cir.
2
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 55 Fed. Appx. 902.