Cornelius v. Town of Highland Lake
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
All 27 flagged citations have been read; four distinct adverse treatments are listed below. Cornelius's routine statement of the elements of a § 1983 claim is outside that ruling.
27 later cases cite Cornelius v. Town of Highland Lake; 27 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 Cornelius v. Town of Highland Lake?
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 Eleventh Circuit held that intervening Supreme Court law displaced Cornelius's special relationship and special danger rules for people outside government custody.
White v. Lemacks · Eleventh Circuit · filed
Recognizing that it was dealt a fatal blow by Collins, we pronounce Cornelius dead and buried. The law on substantive due process when a citizen who is not in custody claims that a governmental unit, agency, or official has caused her harm is supplied by the Collins decision, which occupies the field to the exclusion of anything we said about such cases in Cornelius.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to follow
-
The First Circuit declined to follow Cornelius to the extent it conflicted with its holding that the state owed no constitutional duty to protect a voluntary mental patient.
Monahan v. Dorchester Counseling Center, Inc. · First Circuit · filed
To the extent Cornelius is inconsistent with our holding, we decline to follow it.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Applying Eighth Circuit law, the district court rejected Cornelius's approach to a special relationship based on the state's custody of an assailant.
Davis v. Fulton County, Ark. · E.D. Ark. · filed
While it could be argued that such a relationship existed between defendants and Huh, by virtue of the trusty status conferred upon him by defendants, cf. Cornelius v. Town of Highland Lake, supra, 880 F.2d at 356-58; Nishiyama v. Dickson County, 814 F.2d 277, 280-81 (6th Cir.1987) (en banc), the Court does not beheve that the Eighth Circuit would adopt such an approach to § 1983 liability.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Questioned
-
The Eleventh Circuit found Cornelius's continued validity uncertain and held that it did not clearly establish a duty to protect a student from a private attacker.
Santamorena v. Georgia Military College · Eleventh Circuit · filed
Because Cornelius has significantly different facts and its validity has been expressly questioned in our later opinions, we cannot let Cornelius be the case that clearly established H.S.’s right to the State’s protection: Cornelius did not clarify the law to the point that all reasonable school officials in Defendants’ place must have known they were subject to a constitutional duty to protect H.S.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Cornelius v. Town of Highland Lake 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