Olivier v. City of Brandon · ¶25

Proof positive comes from the logical—but wholly untenable—consequences of the City's position. Suppose that after Olivier's conviction, another citizen brings a § 1983 suit to enjoin the city ordinance so that he can speak outside the amphitheater. Let's name this citizen Laurence and say that he boasts a clean police record. Would Heck allow Laurence's suit to proceed? See 121 F. 4th, at 514 (Oldham, J., dissenting) (offering a similar hypothetical). The very question seems ludicrous: No one would say Heck poses a bar. But under the City's logic, it should—because here, too, Heck's language fts. The hypothetical suit—no less than Olivier's own—would, if successful, “necessarily imply the invalidity” of Olivier's conviction (as well as all other convictions under the statute). 512 U. S., at 487. A judgment in that suit too would demonstrate, and in just the same way, that Olivier's…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.