Richard Berndt v. State of Tennessee and Lakeshore Mental Health Institute
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Nearby uses of “abrogated” concerned whether Congress displaced state sovereign immunity, not the validity of Berndt; other opinions positively cited its limitations-period, pro se pleading, and constructive-notice principles. A later Sixth Circuit decision explained that Berndt had left the mistaken-identity question under Rule 15(c) open and decided that question under later precedent.
303 later cases cite Richard Berndt v. State of Tennessee and Lakeshore Mental Health Institute; 97 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 Richard Berndt v. State of Tennessee and Lakeshore Mental Health Institute?
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 97 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 Richard Berndt v. State of Tennessee and Lakeshore Mental Health Institute 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