Case Citator › In re Dorsainvil

In re Dorsainvil

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

Abrogated
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
119 F.3d 245
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
51 of 51
Citing cases (total)
51
Treatment dates
2023
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. In re Dorsainvil's rule allowing a federal prisoner to use section 2241 after an intervening statutory interpretation made the prisoner's conduct noncriminal was abrogated by Jones v. Hendrix. The Supreme Court held that section 2255's saving clause does not permit that route around the limits on successive section 2255 motions.
More on how this was screened

All 51 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatment is listed below.

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.

51 later cases cite In re Dorsainvil; 51 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 In re Dorsainvil?

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 Supreme Court rejected the saving clause route recognized in Dorsainvil for a second collateral attack based on a new interpretation of a criminal statute.

    Jones v. Hendrix · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Several Courts of Appeals found a workaround for those prisoners in the saving clause. With minor differences in reasoning and wording, they held that §2255 was “inade- quate and ineffective” under the saving clause—and that §2241 was therefore available—when AEDPA’s second-or- successive restrictions barred a prisoner from seeking relief based on a newly adopted narrowing interpretation of a criminal statute that circuit precedent had foreclosed at the time of the prisoner’s trial, appeal, and first §2255 motion. This application of the saving clause took shape in In re Dorsainvil, 119 F. 3d 245, 251 (CA3 1997); ... We now hold that the saving clause does not authorize such an end-run around AEDPA.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads In re Dorsainvil 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