Case Citator › Hayward v. Marshall

Hayward v. Marshall

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

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
603 F.3d 546
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
186 of 186
Citing cases (total)
372
Treatment dates
2011
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Hayward v. Marshall was overruled in part. Swarthout v. Cooke ended federal habeas review of whether California courts correctly applied the state's “some evidence” rule to parole denials.
More on how this was screened

The Ninth Circuit later described Hayward as “overruled on other grounds by Swarthout” in Eldridge v. Howard. Its separate certificate of appealability discussion continues to be cited. All 186 flagged citations have been read; the one confirmed treatment is listed below.

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.

372 later cases cite Hayward v. Marshall; 186 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 Hayward v. Marshall?

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 ended Hayward's rule allowing federal habeas courts to review California's application of its “some evidence” parole standard.

    Swarthout v. Cooke · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    No opinion of ours supports converting California’s “some evidence” rule into a substantive federal requirement. The liberty interest at issue here is the interest in receiving parole when the California standards for parole have been met, and the minimum procedures adequate for due process protection of that interest are those set forth in Greenholtz. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F. 3d 546, 559 (CA9 2010) (en banc). Greenholtz did not inquire into whether the constitutionally requisite procedures provided by Nebraska produced the result that the evidence required; a fortiori it is no federal concern here whether California’s “some evidence” rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hayward v. Marshall 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