Ward v. Wolfenbarger

How courts have described this case

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

• “in light of the prejudice that petitioner would receive from further delays in adjudicating his claims in the state appellate courts” after thirty-three years, a conditional writ would be inappropriate
• “[Rjequests to expunge records are traditionally brought as civil rights claims.”
• “A federal district court has the authority, in a habeas corpus proceeding, to order the expungement of a habeas petitioner’s criminal records against all persons who maintain custody of such records.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Carrie Gentry v. Doris Deuth, Warden, Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women
  Sixth Circuit· 2006-07-31· cited 119×
• Victor Turner v. Margaret Bagley
  Sixth Circuit· 2005-03-21· cited 51×
• Steward v. Moore
  N.D. Ohio· 2008-03-26· cited 10×
• Pouncy v. Palmer
  E.D. Michigan· 2016-03-04· cited 7×
• Ramchair v. Conway
  E.D. New York· 2009-11-05· cited 6×
• Pillette v. Berghuis
  E.D. Michigan· 2009-09-18· cited 4×
• Williams v. Birkett
  E.D. Michigan· 2010-02-26· cited 2×
• Goldy v. Tierney
  E.D. Michigan· 2008-04-18· cited 2×
• Pillette v. Berghuis
  E.D. Michigan· 2009-10-02· cited 1×
• Brown v. Aud
  E.D. Michigan· 2012-06-18· cited 1×
• Turner v. Bagley
  Sixth Circuit· 2005-03-21
• Gentry v. Deuth
  Sixth Circuit· 2006-07-31