Case Citator › Jenkins v. McKeithen

Jenkins v. McKeithen

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
395 U.S. 411
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
87 of 87
Citing cases (total)
2,924
Treatment dates
1973
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Jenkins v. McKeithen is limited: all 87 flagged citations were read, with the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. Haines v. Askew, summarily affirmed at 417 U.S. 901 (1974), confined the Marshall plurality's due-process analysis to the pleaded facts of an agency used to expose and publicly brand named people as criminals.
More on how this was screened

The other citing opinions applied Jenkins's plaintiff-favorable pleading rule, used its procedural-due-process analysis positively, rejected an argument that later precedent cast doubt on it, applied its own factual boundary, or placed nearby adverse language on unrelated authorities.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

2,924 later cases cite Jenkins v. McKeithen; 87 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Jenkins v. McKeithen?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The three-judge district court confined the Marshall plurality's accusatory-hearing analysis to Jenkins's unusual pleaded facts that the commission was a subterfuge for publicly branding the plaintiff a criminal, and declined to extend it to bona fide investigative probable-cause hearings.

    Haines v. Askew · M.D. Fla. (three-judge court) · filed

    If Jenkins is limited to its facts, then and only then, can its result appear harmonious with the Hannah case of a decade earlier.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Jenkins v. McKeithen and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace