Case Citator › Adolph G. Hoffman v. C. H. Halden, Dr. Donald E. Wair, Dr. G. F. Keller and Dr. F. Sydney Hansen

Adolph G. Hoffman v. C. H. Halden, Dr. Donald E. Wair, Dr. G. F. Keller and Dr. F. Sydney Hansen

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

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
268 F.2d 280
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
81 of 81
Citing cases (total)
349
Treatment dates
1962
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Adolph G. Hoffman v. C. H. Halden, Dr. Donald E. Wair, Dr. G. F. Keller and Dr. F. Sydney Hansen has been overruled in part: all 81 flagged citations were read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. The Ninth Circuit en banc in Cohen v. Norris overruled Hoffman's rule that a section 1983 due-process plaintiff must plead a discriminatory purpose, while continuing to cite Hoffman favorably for the availability of a section 1983 civil-conspiracy claim.
More on how this was screened

Later Ninth Circuit opinions report that the Supreme Court's qualified-immunity decisions beginning with Scheuer v. Rhodes also displaced Hoffman's absolute executive-officer immunity rule; Morrison v. Jones expressly recognizes that history, but the Supreme Court opinions do not name Hoffman, so the lower court's report is not presented as a separate treating act. The other reviewed opinions applied surviving portions of Hoffman, copied the Cohen history, or placed nearby adverse language on unrelated authorities, statutes, and appellate issues.

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.

349 later cases cite Adolph G. Hoffman v. C. H. Halden, Dr. Donald E. Wair, Dr. G. F. Keller and Dr. F. Sydney Hansen; 81 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 Adolph G. Hoffman v. C. H. Halden, Dr. Donald E. Wair, Dr. G. F. Keller and Dr. F. Sydney Hansen?

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 Ninth Circuit en banc overruled Hoffman's requirement that a section 1983 due-process plaintiff allege a purpose to discriminate or to deprive the plaintiff of a federal right.

    Michael Cohen v. Russell K. Norris · Ninth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    In our view Monroe v. Pape announces the rule that an allegation of a purpose to discriminate or a purpose to deprive one of any federal right, is not essential to the statement of a claim under § 1983 predicated on an alleged violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is accordingly necessary for us to overrule in this respect the contrary holdings in our earlier decisions in Agnew v. City of Compton and Hoffman v. Halden, and to disapprove the contrary statement made by way of dictum in Walker v. Bank of America.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Adolph G. Hoffman v. C. H. Halden, Dr. Donald E. Wair, Dr. G. F. Keller and Dr. F. Sydney Hansen 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