Case Citator › Hudson v. McMillian

Hudson v. McMillian

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
503 U.S. 1
Decided
Confirmed treatments
4
Flagged citations read
415 of 415
Citing cases (total)
8,177
Treatment dates
1995–2002
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. Hudson v. McMillian remains controlling on excessive force against convicted prisoners, but courts have confined its distinctions to their Eighth Amendment setting. Four decisions listed below declined to carry those distinctions into claims about prison administrators or the Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion requirement.
More on how this was screened

All 415 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.

8,177 later cases cite Hudson v. McMillian; 415 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 Hudson v. McMillian?

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 court held that Hudson's maliciousness standard did not govern a class claim seeking to stop prison administrators' ongoing tolerance of excessive force.

    Madrid v. Gomez · N.D. Cal. · filed

    Given the above, we are persuaded that Hudson does not require us to measure defendants’ state of mind against a standard of maliciousness.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court declined to use Hudson's distinction between excessive force and prison conditions to exempt force claims from the Act's exhaustion requirement.

    Beeson v. Fishkill Correctional Facility · S.D.N.Y. · filed

    Only if there was some reason to believe that Congress wished to implement the Court’s distinction would the Farmer and Hudson passages be relevant to the inquiry. In the present case, there does not appear to be such reason.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court refused to extend Hudson's distinction between excessive force and prison conditions to the Act's exhaustion rule.

    Castillo v. Buday · S.D.N.Y. · filed

    Congress has clearly enunciated its own definition, so that resort to language in Hudson is neither relevant nor appropriate.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court declined to extend Hudson's Eighth Amendment proof distinctions to the Act's exhaustion requirement.

    Porter v. Nussle · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We have no reason to believe that Congress meant to release the evidentiary distinctions drawn in Hudson and Farmer from their moorings and extend their application to the otherwise invigorated exhaustion requirement of § 1997e(a).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hudson v. McMillian 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