Case Citator › Tennessee v. Garner

Tennessee v. Garner

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
471 U.S. 1
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
78 of 78
Citing cases (total)
4,259
Treatment dates
2004–2007
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. Tennessee v. Garner remains controlling but has been limited in two contexts: all 78 flagged citations have been read, with the 2 confirmed treatments listed below. Brosseau v. Haugen held that Garner's general deadly-force test ordinarily does not, without factually particularized precedent, clearly establish the law for qualified-immunity purposes outside an obvious case.
More on how this was screened

Scott v. Harris held that Garner's factors are not rigid preconditions for every use of potentially deadly force and confined Garner's direct application to materially similar circumstances, rather than high-speed vehicle chases threatening the public. The queued lower-court opinions otherwise applied Garner, reported those Supreme Court limitations, or placed adverse language on unrelated authorities. Superseded and vacated opinions were checked and produced no entries.

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.

4,259 later cases cite Tennessee v. Garner; 78 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 Tennessee v. Garner?

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

  • Garner's general deadly-force test did not by itself clearly establish the answer for qualified-immunity purposes in a factually distinct vehicle-flight case that was not an obvious violation.

    Brosseau v. Haugen · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The Court of Appeals acknowledged this statement of law, but then proceeded to find fair warning in the general tests set out in Graham and Garner. 339 F. 3d, at 873-874. In so doing, it was mistaken. Graham and Garner, following the lead of the Fourth Amendment’s text, are cast at a high level of generality. ... The present case is far from the obvious one where Graham and Garner alone offer a basis for decision.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • Garner did not impose rigid preconditions on every use of potentially deadly force; its direct application was confined to materially similar circumstances and did not govern a high-speed vehicle chase that endangered the public.

    Scott v. Harris · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Respondent’s argument falters at its first step; Garner did not establish a magical on/off switch that triggers rigid preconditions whenever an officer's actions constitute “deadly force.” Gamer was simply an application of the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” test, Graham, supra, at 388, to the use of a particular type of force in a particular situation.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Tennessee v. Garner 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