Case Citator › Wood v. Strickland

Wood v. Strickland

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
420 U.S. 308
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
72 of 72
Citing cases (total)
72
Treatment dates
1982
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Wood v. Strickland is overruled in part on the subjective component of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court replaced Wood's combined objective and subjective test with a standard based on clearly established law in Harlow v. Fitzgerald.
More on how this was screened

Wood's recognition of qualified immunity for school officials was not rejected. The confirmed treatment is listed below; all 72 flagged citations have been read.

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.

72 later cases cite Wood v. Strickland; 72 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 Wood v. Strickland?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court replaced Wood's subjective good-faith component with an objective qualified-immunity standard tied to clearly established law.

    Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Decisions of this Court have established that the “good faith” defense has both an “objective” and a “subjective” aspect. ... Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308, 322 (1975). The subjective component refers to “permissible intentions.” ... The subjective element of the good-faith defense frequently has proved incompatible with our admonition in Butz ... We therefore hold that government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Wood v. Strickland 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