Case Citator › Ellis v. University Of Kansas Medical Center

Ellis v. University Of Kansas Medical Center

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

Overruled in part
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
163 F.3d 1186
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
73 of 73
Treatment dates
2001
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Ellis v. University of Kansas Medical Center has been overruled in part on attorney fees. All 73 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court's Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources rejected the catalyst test Ellis used to award fees after a private settlement. Bell v. Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County later cited Ellis's general settlement rule but applied Buckhannon to deny fees for a settlement without judicial approval. The confirmed treatment is listed below; Ellis's Eleventh Amendment holdings remain in use.

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.

73 citations to Ellis v. University Of Kansas Medical Center 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 Ellis v. University Of Kansas Medical Center?

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 the catalyst test Ellis used to award attorney fees after a private settlement without judicial approval.

    Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We think, however, the “catalyst theory” falls on the other side of the line from these examples. It allows an award where there is no judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties. ... A defendant’s voluntary change in conduct, although perhaps accomplishing what the plaintiff sought to achieve by the lawsuit, lacks the necessary judicial imprimatur on the change. Our precedents thus counsel against holding that the term “prevailing party” authorizes an award of attorney’s fees without a corresponding alteration in the legal relationship of the parties.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Ellis v. University Of Kansas Medical Center 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