Case Citator › Johnson v. Morel

Johnson v. Morel

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

Overruled in part
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
876 F.2d 477
Decided
Confirmed treatments
6
Flagged citations read
45 of 45
Citing cases (total)
45
Treatment dates
1991–2021
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Johnson v. Morel was overruled in part on the injury needed for a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. In its operative opinion, Harper v. Harris County held that a plaintiff need not prove a significant injury.
More on how this was screened

Johnson's separate equal protection holding continues to be cited, though McKey v. August followed later Fifth Circuit guidance requiring an allegation of unequal treatment. All 45 flagged citations have been read. The six confirmed treatments 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.

45 later cases cite Johnson v. Morel; 45 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 Johnson v. Morel?

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

Overruled in Part

  • After intervening Supreme Court authority, the Fifth Circuit rejected Johnson's significant injury requirement for Fourth Amendment excessive force claims.

    Harper v. Harris County · Fifth Circuit · filed

    We now hold that the Johnson standard is no longer valid in the wake of Hudson v. McMillian ... to assess whether plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation. A plaintiff is no longer required to prove significant injury to assert a section 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Fifth Circuit declined to apply Johnson's excessive force standard when assessing a 1986 arrest under the law then in effect.

    Fields v. City of South Houston · Fifth Circuit · filed

    Because these events took place in 1986, the standard for excessive force to be applied is NOT Johnson v. Morel, 876 F.2d 477 (5th Cir.1989) (en banc), but rather Shillingford v. Holmes, 634 F.2d 263 (5th Cir. Unit A Jan. 1981).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Fifth Circuit likewise held that Johnson's revised injury standard did not govern officers' earlier conduct.

    King v. Chide · Fifth Circuit · filed

    Johnson v. Morel, 876 F.2d 477 (5th Cir.1989) changed the standard for Fourth Amendment excessive force claims ... However, because the standard was revised at a point in time after Officers Chide and Gonzales arrested King, we must reevaluate their conduct under the earlier Shillingford standard.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • A district court called the significant injury requirement made explicit in Johnson misguided.

    Freitas v. Stone · District of Hawaii · filed

    In 1989, the Fifth Circuit made the significant injury explicit in the context of Fourth Amendment claims of excessive force in arrests. Johnson v. Morel, 876 F.2d 477, 480. ... The point of the significant injury requirement was an attempt, albeit misguided, to offer officers employing force some guidance in conforming their conduct to the law.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The Fifth Circuit said Johnson's significant injury requirement had been called into question, without deciding whether it still governed Fourth Amendment claims.

    Spann v. Rainey · Fifth Circuit · filed

    Johnson's “significant injury” has now been called into question, see supra note 7
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to Follow

  • A district court declined Johnson's older equal protection formulation and required an allegation of unequal treatment under later Fifth Circuit guidance.

    McKey v. August · Eastern District of Louisiana · filed

    Although the Fifth Circuit’s earlier decisions in Williams and Johnson, issued in 1999 and 1989, respectively, indicate that an equal protection claim requires only an allegation of intentional discrimination based upon membership in a protected class, this Court must follow the most recent guidance provided by the Fifth Circuit on this issue, which is Club Retro, LLC.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Johnson v. Morel 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