Scott R. Crow v. Daniel W. Penry

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that Heck “applies to proceedings that call into question the fact or duration of parole or probation”
• holding Heck “applies to proceedings that call into question the fact or duration of parole or probation”
• finding the plaintiff's civil claim for damages implied the invalidity of his parole revocation and subsequent incarceration and noting that Heck does not permit this
• applying Heck to bar § 1983 claim where challenge would imply the invalidity of plaintiff’s parole revocation
• dismissing pursuant to Heck claims that a probation officer falsely testified at the plaintiff’s probation revocation hearing
• applying Heck to claim 15 alleging invalidity of a parole revocation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).