Parratt v. Taylor
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
L & H Sanitation, Inc. v. Lake City Sanitation, Inc., Buranen v. Hanna, and Arnaud v. Odom limited its postdeprivation-remedy rationale to procedural due process claims. Opinions that merely apply Parratt's own random-and-unauthorized boundary are applications of its rule and produce no entry.
6,673 later cases cite Parratt v. Taylor; 2,100 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; 2,077 of them have been read, and the text of 23 citing opinions could not be retrieved, so those remain unread. 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 Parratt v. Taylor?
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 overruled Parratt in part, holding that mere lack of due care by a state official does not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Daniels v. Williams · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Upon reflection, we agree and overrule Parratt to the extent that it states that mere lack of due care by a state official may “deprive” an individual of life, liberty, or property under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The court limited Parratt by rejecting its use as a general state-remedies exhaustion rule and holding that it does not bar a claim based on a substantive constitutional right.
L & H Sanitation, Inc. v. Lake City Sanitation, Inc. · Eighth Circuit · filed
We disagree with the district court's analysis to the extent that the district court concluded that Parratt v. Taylor bars appellants' due process claim because of the availability of state post-deprivation remedies.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court limited Parratt by holding that its adequate-state-remedies analysis applies only to procedural due process violations, not substantive constitutional violations.
Buranen v. Hanna · D. Minn. · filed
The existence of state law tort remedies has no bearing upon plaintiffs’ fourth amendment claims because the Parratt analysis of available adequate state remedies applies only to violations of procedural due process and not to violations of substantive constitutional proscriptions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Fifth Circuit confined Parratt's adequate-postdeprivation-remedy rationale to procedural due process and expressly declined to extend it to substantive constitutional violations.
Arnaud v. Odom · Fifth Circuit · filed
This Circuit has confined the Parratt analysis employed in the previous portion of this opinion regarding the availability of state remedies to satisfy the constitutional concerns of due process to asserted violations of procedural, not substantive, due process. Thibodeaux v. Bordelon, 740 F.2d 329, 333 (5th Cir.1984). In this regard, this Court has declined to extend the Parratt rationale to “substantive constitutional proscriptions applicable to the states because of incorporation into the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Parratt v. Taylor 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