State v. Cheever - (

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that plaintiff's wrongful commitment claims were barred by Heck
• explaining that under Heck, a claim is not cognizable under § 1983 “if it would undermine a still- valid state criminal judgment”
• stating that a claim for damages is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if it would undermine a still-valid state criminal judgment
• explaining that if state officials force a civilly committed individual to take drugs having no connection to his mental illness, or intentionally injure him while treating him, the individual may have a viable claim for damages under § 1983
• explaining that if state officials force a civilly committed individual to take drugs having no connection to his mental illness, or intentionally injure him while treating him, the individual may have a viable claim for damages under § 1983
• explaining that if state officials force a civilly committed individual to take drugs having no connection to his mental illness, or intentionally injure him while treating him, the individual may have a viable claim for damages under § 1983

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).