Case Citator › Brooks v. Gaenzle

Brooks v. Gaenzle

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

Abrogated
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
614 F.3d 1213
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
40 of 40
Citing cases (total)
40
Treatment dates
2021
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Brooks v. Gaenzle was abrogated on whether an officer seizes a fleeing person by shooting them; all 40 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. The Supreme Court held in Torres v. Madrid that physical force intended to restrain is a seizure even when the person escapes.
More on how this was screened

A later Tenth Circuit opinion in Torres v. Madrid described the Supreme Court's decision as overruling Brooks. Brooks's separate rulings on the reasonableness of force, civil rights conspiracy, and supplemental jurisdiction were not resolved by the Supreme Court's seizure holding; later courts continue to cite the latter two.

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.

40 later cases cite Brooks v. Gaenzle; 40 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 Brooks v. Gaenzle?

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

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected Brooks's rule that physical force must stop or control a fleeing person to count as a Fourth Amendment seizure.

    Torres v. Madrid · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The court relied on Circuit precedent providing that “no seizure can occur unless there is physical touch or a show of authority,” and that “such physical touch (or force) must terminate the suspect’s movement” or otherwise give rise to physical control over the suspect. Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F. 3d 1213, 1223 (2010). ... We hold that the application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Brooks v. Gaenzle 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