Case Citator › William Anthony Brooks v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent

William Anthony Brooks v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent

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

Good law
Court
Eleventh Circuit
Citation
762 F.2d 1383
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
36 of 36
Citing cases (total)
36
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. Brooks v. Kemp is good law after review of all 36 flagged citations; none directly treated this en banc opinion adversely. Many references report that Brooks overruled part of Hance v. Zant, and several later courts applied Brooks.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment for reconsideration in light of Rose v. Clark, Kemp v. Brooks, 478 U.S. 1016 (1986), but the Eleventh Circuit expressly reinstated its en banc opinion in Brooks v. Kemp, 809 F.2d 700 (1987), after that reconsideration.

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.

36 later cases cite William Anthony Brooks v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent; 36 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 William Anthony Brooks v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent?

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.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 36 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads William Anthony Brooks v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent 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