Cottone v. Jenne
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
No screened opinion adversely treated Cottone's separate supervisory-liability rules; the other citing opinions applied those rules positively, repeated Randall's partial-abrogation history parenthetical, or used nearby treatment language for another authority.
740 later cases cite Cottone v. Jenne; 152 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 Cottone v. Jenne?
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 Eleventh Circuit abrogated Cottone's heightened pleading requirement for § 1983 cases involving qualified immunity, replacing the circuit's former heightened standard with the Twombly–Iqbal plausibility standard.
Randall v. Scott · Eleventh Circuit · filed
We now say explicitly what Keating implied: whatever requirements our heightened pleading standard once imposed have since been replaced by those of the Twombly-Iqbal plausibility standard.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Cottone v. Jenne 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