Case Citator › Leeroy B. Bostic, Jr. v. Peter Carlson, Warden

Leeroy B. Bostic, Jr. v. Peter Carlson, Warden

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

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
884 F.2d 1267
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
38 of 38
Citing cases (total)
38
Treatment dates
2016
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Bostic v. Carlson was overruled in part on habeas jurisdiction for state prisoners, while later courts continued to apply its other holdings; all 38 flagged citations have been read. The confirmed adverse treatment is listed below.
More on how this was screened

The en banc court expressly left the scope of federal prisoners' habeas relief unresolved.

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.

38 later cases cite Leeroy B. Bostic, Jr. v. Peter Carlson, Warden; 38 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 Leeroy B. Bostic, Jr. v. Peter Carlson, Warden?

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

  • The en banc Ninth Circuit overruled Bostic to the extent it permitted a state prisoner's habeas claim that would not necessarily lead to immediate or speedier release.

    Nettles v. Grounds · Ninth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    Accordingly, we hold that if a state prisoner’s claim does not lie at “the core of habeas corpus,” Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487, 93 S.Ct. 1827, it may not be brought in habeas corpus but must be brought, “if at all,” under § 1983, Skinner, 562 U.S. at 535 n. 13, 131 S.Ct. 1289. We therefore overrule Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir.2004), and Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir.1989), to the extent they are inconsistent with this rule.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Leeroy B. Bostic, Jr. v. Peter Carlson, Warden 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