Case Citator › Muhammad v. Close

Muhammad v. Close

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

Good law
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
540 U.S. 749
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
107 of 107
Citing cases (total)
1,433
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. Muhammad v. Close remains good law on the record reviewed here: all 107 flagged citations have been read, and none adversely treated it. The citing courts applied its distinction between a § 1983 claim and a challenge to the fact or duration of confinement, or noted that Muhammad left a separate question open.
More on how this was screened

Repeated “overruled” and “abrogated” parentheticals describe Muhammad's effect on Huey v. Stine, not a later court's treatment of Muhammad. Wilson v. Midland County rejected a party's argument that Muhammad had implicitly abrogated another precedent.

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.

1,433 later cases cite Muhammad v. Close; 107 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 Muhammad v. Close?

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.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 107 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Muhammad v. Close 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