Case Citator › McElligott v. Foley

McElligott v. Foley

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

Abrogated
Court
Eleventh Circuit
Citation
182 F.3d 1248
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
35 of 35
Citing cases (total)
35
Treatment dates
2024
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. McElligott v. Foley was abrogated in part. All 35 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in Wade v. McDade, listed below, replaced the “more than mere negligence” formulation McElligott used for deliberate indifference with a subjective recklessness standard. Courts continue to apply McElligott's separate guidance on delayed or inadequate medical care.

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.

35 later cases cite McElligott v. Foley; 35 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 McElligott v. Foley?

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 en banc Eleventh Circuit replaced McElligott's “more than mere negligence” formulation for deliberate indifference with a subjective recklessness standard.

    Wade v. McDade · Eleventh Circuit (en banc) · filed

    Having reconsidered the issue, we now repudiate our dueling “more than” formulations and hold instead that a deliberate-indifference plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with “subjective recklessness as used in the criminal law,” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 839, and that in order to do so, the plaintiff must show that the defendant was subjectively aware that his own conduct put the plaintiff at substantial risk of serious harm—with the caveat that, in any event, a defendant who “respond[s] reasonably” to a risk, id. at 844, even a known risk, “cannot be found liable” under the Eighth Amendment, id. at 837.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads McElligott v. Foley 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