Ralphael Okoro v. William Callaghan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the plaintiff’s denial that he had drugs at his home and argument that he was framed necessarily challenged the validity of his drug conviction
• noting that Heck directs that a state inmate “making a collateral attack on the conviction . . . may not do that in a civil suit, other than a suit under the habeas corpus statute.”
• noting Heck directs that a state inmate “making a collateral attack on the conviction [or sentence] . . . may not do that in a civil suit, other than a suit under the habeas corpus statute”
• noting Heck directs that a state inmate “making a collateral attack on the conviction [or sentence] . . . may not do that in a civil suit, other than a suit under the habeas corpus statute.”
• noting Heck directs that a state inmate “making a collateral attack on the [basis for his confinement] . . . may not do that in a civil suit, other than a suit under the habeas corpus statute.”
• noting Heck directs that a state inmate “making a collateral attack on the [basis for his confinement] . . . may not do that in a civil suit, other than a suit under the habeas corpus statute.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).