Case Citator › Toussaint v. McCarthy

Toussaint v. McCarthy

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

Abrogated
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
801 F.2d 1080
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
308 of 308
Citing cases (total)
960
Treatment dates
1995
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Toussaint v. McCarthy was abrogated in part on its method for finding a prisoner's state-created liberty interest from mandatory language in prison regulations. All 308 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatment is listed below.
More on how this was screened

The Ninth Circuit later recognized the change in Brown v. Oregon Department of Corrections, 751 F.3d 983 (2014): it identified Toussaint's regulation-language approach and explained that Sandin v. Conner shifted the inquiry to the hardship imposed by the confinement. Toussaint's separate procedural holdings are not displaced by that shift.

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.

960 later cases cite Toussaint v. McCarthy; 308 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 Toussaint v. McCarthy?

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 Supreme Court displaced Toussaint's mandatory-language approach to state-created prison liberty interests and required examination of the restraint's hardship.

    Sandin v. Conner · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In light of the above discussion, we believe that the search for a negative implication from mandatory language in prisoner regulations has strayed from the real concerns under-girding the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The time has come to return to the due process principles we believe were correctly established and applied in Wolff and Meachum.5 Following Wolff, we recognize that States *484may under certain circumstances create liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause. See also Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U. S. 369 (1987). But these interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, see, e. g., Vitek, 445 U. S., at 493 (transfer to mental hospital), and Washington, 494 U. S., at 221-222 (involuntary administration of psychotropic drugs), nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Toussaint v. McCarthy 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