Case Citator › Hudson v. Reno

Hudson v. Reno

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

Overruled in part
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
130 F.3d 1193
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
39 of 39
Citing cases (total)
39
Treatment dates
2001
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Hudson v. Reno was overruled in part on Title VII front pay. All 39 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court held in Pollard v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. that front pay falls outside the statutory damages cap, rejecting Hudson's contrary rule. Later courts continue to apply Hudson's separate rulings on the per-action damages cap, attorney fees, and Privacy Act records. A Ninth Circuit disagreement with Hudson about Privacy Act emotional-distress damages was later reversed by the Supreme Court in Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper. 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.

39 later cases cite Hudson v. Reno; 39 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 Hudson v. Reno?

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 Supreme Court rejected Hudson's holding that Title VII front pay counts toward the statutory cap on compensatory damages.

    Pollard v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The Sixth Circuit has concluded that front pay constitutes compensatory damages awarded for future pecuniary losses and thus is subject to the statutory cap of § 1981a(b)(3). 213 F. 3d, at 945; Hudson, swpra, at 1203. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that front pay is not an element of compensatory damages within the meaning of § 1981a, and, therefore, we hold that the statutory cap of § 1981a(b)(3) is inapplicable to front pay.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hudson v. Reno 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