Case Citator › Clabourne v. Ryan

Clabourne v. Ryan

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

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
745 F.3d 362
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
58 of 58
Citing cases (total)
58
Treatment dates
2015
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Clabourne v. Ryan was overruled in part. The Ninth Circuit sitting en banc rejected its special “clear indication” test for deciding whether an Arizona capital sentencing court improperly disregarded mitigating evidence.
More on how this was screened

All 58 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. Later courts continue to cite Clabourne's separate analysis of ineffective assistance and procedural default.

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.

58 later cases cite Clabourne v. Ryan; 58 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 Clabourne v. Ryan?

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 en banc court overruled Clabourne's “clear indication” test for identifying an Arizona sentencing court's refusal to consider mitigating evidence.

    McKinney v. Ryan · Ninth Circuit, en banc · filed

    In six of these, we applied a test first articulated in Schad v. Ryan, 581 F.3d 1019, 1037 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (unamended opinion), under which we could not find Eddings error unless there was a “clear indication in the record” that the Arizona Court had refused, as a matter of law, to treat nonstatutory mitigation evidence as relevant unless it had some effect on the petitioner’s criminal behavior. See Hedlund v. Ryan, 750 F.3d 793, 818 (9th Cir.2014); Murray v. Schriro, 746 F.3d 418, 455 (9th Cir.2014); Clabourne v. Ryan, 745 F.3d 362, 373 (9th Cir.2014) (petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc pending); ... We therefore overrule Schad, and the cases that have followed it, with respect to the “clear indication” test.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Clabourne v. Ryan 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