Case Citator › Boyce v. Alizaduh

Boyce v. Alizaduh

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

Abrogated
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
595 F.2d 948
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
38 of 38
Citing cases (total)
38
Treatment dates
1989
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Boyce v. Alizaduh was abrogated as to its equation of failure to state a claim with frivolousness under the former in forma pauperis statute. The Supreme Court separated those standards in Neitzke v. Williams; Wynn v. Correctional Officer Mundo and later courts identify that change as abrogation on other grounds.
More on how this was screened

Boyce's rule that mere negligent medical care does not establish deliberate indifference continues to be applied. All 38 flagged citations have been read; the 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.

38 later cases cite Boyce v. Alizaduh; 38 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 Boyce v. Alizaduh?

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 held that a complaint's failure to state a claim does not automatically make it frivolous under the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), displacing Boyce's treatment of the two standards as practically equivalent.

    Neitzke v. Williams · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Taking this approach, it is evident that the failure-to-state-a-claim standard of Rule 12(b)(6) and the frivolousness standard of § 1915(d) were devised to serve distinctive goals, and that while the overlap between these two standards is considerable, it does not follow that a complaint which falls afoul of the former standard will invariably fall afoul of the latter.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Boyce v. Alizaduh 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