Case Citator › Jeffries v. Wood

Jeffries v. Wood

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

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
114 F.3d 1484
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
62 of 62
Citing cases (total)
62
Treatment dates
1998–2012
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Jeffries v. Wood has been overruled in part. All 62 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The 2 confirmed treatments are listed below: the en banc Ninth Circuit rejected its suggested exception to binding circuit precedent, and an Ohio district court declined its approach to an AEDPA standard.

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.

62 later cases cite Jeffries v. Wood; 62 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 Jeffries v. Wood?

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 Jeffries to the extent it suggested that a panel could use exceptions to the law-of-the-case doctrine to disregard binding published circuit precedent.

    Gonzalez v. Arizona · Ninth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    We now hold that the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine are not exceptions to our general "law of the circuit” rule, i.e., the rule that a published decision of this court constitutes binding authority which "must be followed unless and until overruled by a body competent to do so,” Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1170 (9th Cir.2001). To the extent that our prior cases suggested otherwise, see Jeffries, 114 F.3d at 1492-93; Mendenhall, 213 F.3d at 469 n. 3; Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc., 216 F.3d at 786-88, they are overruled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The Ohio district court rejected Jeffries's approach to deciding whether a state court unreasonably applied established federal law under AEDPA.

    Franklin v. Francis · S.D. Ohio · filed

    This Court is cognizant that there are two different approaches being developed and debated as to what constitutes an “unreasonable'' application of clearly established Federal law, and that the Sixth Circuit has not yet addressed this question. However, this Court is persuaded by the reasoning and decision of its sister court in Nevers v. Killinger, 990 F.Supp. 844 (E.D.Mich. 1997), which declined to follow the unworkable and unreasonable approach of the Fifth' and Ninth Circuits, as set forth in Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 768-69 (5th Cir.1996), and Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1500 (9th Cir. 1997). Instead, the Nevers court was guided by the Seventh’s Circuit approach in Hennon v. Cooper, 109 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir.1997), which held that a reasonable determination is one which is "consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Jeffries v. Wood 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