Case Citator › Jones v. Diamond

Jones v. Diamond

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

Overruled in part
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
636 F.2d 1364
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
62 of 62
Citing cases (total)
62
Treatment dates
1986–1996
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Jones v. Diamond has been overruled in part. All 62 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The 2 confirmed treatments are listed below: the Fifth Circuit overruled its rule on excess expert witness fees and confined its reasonable relationship test to general jail conditions.

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.

62 later cases cite Jones v. Diamond; 62 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 Jones v. Diamond?

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 Fifth Circuit overruled Jones's rule allowing excess expert witness fees to be taxed as costs under a different standard.

    International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO and Its Local No. 5-376 v. Champion International Corporation · Fifth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    Our holding overrules those portions of Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 453 U.S. 950, 102 S.Ct. 27, 69 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1981); Copper Liquor Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 684 F.2d 1087 (5th Cir.1982) (Copper Liquor III), modified on other grounds en banc, 701 F.2d 542 (5th *1176Cir.1983), and their progeny approving the taxing of excess expert witness’ fees as costs under standards different from that here announced.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The en banc Fifth Circuit kept Jones's reasonable relationship test for general jail conditions but declined to extend it to a jail official's isolated acts or omissions.

    Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss. · Fifth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    In Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir.1981) (en banc), ... while Jones applied Bell in asking whether pretrial detainees had to be separated from prisoners as a general matter of jail policy, it left open the question of how to analyze a claim based on an isolated failure to protect a pretrial detainee from violence at the hands of other pretrial detainees, or even at his own hands. ... Second, we explain that the Bell test retains vitality only when a pretrial detainee attacks general conditions, practices, rules, or restrictions of pretrial confinement. When, by contrast, a pretrial detainee’s claim is based on a jail official’s episodic acts or omissions, the Bell test is inapplicable, and hence the proper inquiry is whether the official had a culpable state of mind in acting or failing to act.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Jones v. Diamond 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