Case Citator › Mary Gordon v. County of Orange

Mary Gordon v. County of Orange

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

Declined by some courts
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
888 F.3d 1118
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
38 of 38
Citing cases (total)
38
Treatment dates
2020
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Gordon v. County of Orange remains the Ninth Circuit's objective standard for pretrial detainee medical care claims, but courts outside that circuit have declined to follow it; all 38 flagged citations have been read. The 2 confirmed refusals are 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 Mary Gordon v. County of Orange; 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 Mary Gordon v. County of Orange?

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

Declined to follow

  • A Georgia district court rejected Gordon's objective standard for detainee deliberate indifference claims because it found binding Eleventh Circuit precedent required the same standard under the Eighth and due process amendments.

    Benavides v. Gartland · Southern District of Georgia · filed

    The only circuit court cases that Petitioners cite on this topic both stand for the proposition that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments rely on different standards for assessing deliberate indifference claims, see Gordon, 888 F.3d 1118 at 1124 (“[W]e hold that claims for violations of the right to adequate medical care brought by pretrial detainees against individual defendants under the Fourteenth Amendment must be evaluated under an objective deliberate indifference standard.”) (quotation and citation omitted); see also Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (finding that the subjective prong of a deliberate indifference claim is “defined objectively” under the Fourteenth Amendment), a proposition that—as discussed above—has been rejected by binding precedent in this circuit.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Tenth Circuit rejected Gordon's extension of Kingsley to detainee medical care claims and retained a test with a subjective component.

    Strain v. Regalado · Tenth Circuit · filed

    Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2018) (relying on the “broad wording of Kingsley” to extend its holding to Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claims); ... We therefore join our sister circuits that have declined to extend Kingsley to deliberate indifference claims and will apply our two-prong test to Plaintiff’s claims.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Mary Gordon v. County of Orange 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