Case Citator › Melisa Richmond v. Rubab Huq

Melisa Richmond v. Rubab Huq

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

Abrogated
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
885 F.3d 928
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
31 of 31
Citing cases (total)
31
Treatment dates
2021
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Melisa Richmond v. Rubab Huq was abrogated as to the subjective awareness required for a pretrial detainee's medical care claim: all 31 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. The Sixth Circuit's later decision in Brawner v. Scott County adopted a modified test requiring more than negligence but less than proof that an official actually knew of the risk.
More on how this was screened

Later Sixth Circuit opinions describe Richmond as “abrogated on other grounds” by Brawner. Richmond's rulings about the seriousness of medical needs and the sufficiency of the evidence remain applicable.

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.

31 later cases cite Melisa Richmond v. Rubab Huq; 31 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 Melisa Richmond v. Rubab Huq?

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 Sixth Circuit replaced the subjective awareness test Richmond applied to pretrial detainee medical care claims with a test requiring reckless disregard of a known or obvious risk.

    Tammy Brawner v. Scott Cnty., Tenn. · Sixth Circuit · filed

    Accordingly, we agree with the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits that Kingsley requires modification of the subjective prong of the deliberate-indifference test for pretrial detainees. What then is required to establish deliberate indifference in this context? Mere negligence is insufficient. A defendant must have not only acted deliberately (not accidentally), but also recklessly “in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be known.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Melisa Richmond v. Rubab Huq 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