Case Citator › Richard E. Loux v. B. J. Rhay, Warden

Richard E. Loux v. B. J. Rhay, Warden

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

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
375 F.2d 55
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
332 of 332
Citing cases (total)
1,380
Treatment dates
2012
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Loux v. Rhay has been overruled in part: all 332 flagged citations have been read, with the one confirmed treatment listed below. The en banc Ninth Circuit in Lacey v. Maricopa County rejected Loux's rule that filing an amended complaint waives appellate review of claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.
More on how this was screened

Loux's general rule that an amended complaint supersedes the original remains in use. The later opinions reviewed—including Edwards v. Lamas in the Eastern District of California and Plush v. Uttecht in the Western District of Washington—applied that surviving rule while reporting Lacey's act; those history parentheticals are not separate treatments. Three recommendations with uncertain precedential status likewise created no treatment.

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.

1,380 later cases cite Richard E. Loux v. B. J. Rhay, Warden; 332 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 Richard E. Loux v. B. J. Rhay, Warden?

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 Ninth Circuit overruled Loux's waiver rule for claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, holding that those claims need not be repleaded to preserve them for appeal.

    Lacey v. Maricopa County · Ninth Circuit en banc · filed

    We have long proclaimed that “[i]t is the law of this circuit that a plaintiff waives all claims alleged in a dismissed complaint which are not realleged in an amended complaint.” ... Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.1967). ... We therefore join our sister circuits and overrule in part the rule found in Forsyth and other cases “that a plaintiff waives all claims alleged in a dismissed complaint which are not realleged in an amended complaint.” ... For claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Richard E. Loux v. B. J. Rhay, Warden 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