Case Citator › John C. McGuckin v. Dr. Smith John C. Medlen, Dr.

John C. McGuckin v. Dr. Smith John C. Medlen, Dr.

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

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
974 F.2d 1050
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
1,160 of 1,160
Citing cases (total)
2,031
Treatment dates
1997
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. All 1,160 flagged citations have been read; McGuckin has one confirmed partial overruling, listed below, and no other adverse treatment was found. WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller overruled McGuckin's appealability rule for dismissals with leave to amend.
More on how this was screened

Later opinions applied McGuckin's unaffected medical-care and pro se rules while merely repeating that history.

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.

2,031 later cases cite John C. McGuckin v. Dr. Smith John C. Medlen, Dr.; 1,160 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 John C. McGuckin v. Dr. Smith John C. Medlen, Dr.?

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 McGuckin to the extent it allowed a plaintiff whose complaint was dismissed with leave to amend to stand on the pleading and appeal without obtaining a further district-court determination.

    WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller · Ninth Circuit · filed

    We have, on occasion, stated that a plaintiff, whose complaint has been dismissed without prejudice, may elect to stand on his pleading. We have not then referred to the rule that a dismissal with leave to amend is not an appealable decision. See, e.g., Carson Harbor Village Ltd. v. City of Carson, 37 F.3d 468, 471 n. 3 (9th Cir.1994); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.1992). We now specifically rule that a plaintiff, who has been given leave to amend, may not file a notice of appeal simply because he does not choose to file an amended complaint. A further district court determination must be obtained. To the extent that any of our cases may suggest a different rule, we now overrule them.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads John C. McGuckin v. Dr. Smith John C. Medlen, Dr. 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