Clarence Erwin Copeland v. Mark MacHulis James Stephens
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Later courts continue to apply its rule requiring a prisoner who alleges a random and unauthorized property deprivation to show that state remedies are inadequate; none of these opinions treats Copeland adversely.
57 later cases cite Clarence Erwin Copeland v. Mark MacHulis James Stephens; 57 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 Clarence Erwin Copeland v. Mark MacHulis James Stephens?
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.
No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.
Every one of the 57 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Clarence Erwin Copeland v. Mark MacHulis James Stephens 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