Case Citator › Thaddeus-X and Earnest Bell, Jr. v. Blatter

Thaddeus-X and Earnest Bell, Jr. v. Blatter

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

Declined by some courts
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
175 F.3d 378
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
102 of 102
Citing cases (total)
2,642
Treatment dates
2000
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Thaddeus-X and Earnest Bell, Jr. v. Blatter has one confirmed declined-to-follow treatment, listed below, and all flagged citations have been read. Friedl v. City of New York declined to follow Thaddeus-X's restrictive interpretation of the scope of prisoners' court-access rights.
More on how this was screened

The other opinions apply or cite Thaddeus-X positively, report Thaddeus-X's effect on older precedent, or place unrelated treatment language near the citation. Duplicate copies of the Friedl opinion support only one entry.

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.

2,642 later cases cite Thaddeus-X and Earnest Bell, Jr. v. Blatter; 102 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 Thaddeus-X and Earnest Bell, Jr. v. Blatter?

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

Declined to Follow

  • The Second Circuit declined to follow Thaddeus-X's restrictive interpretation of Lewis v. Casey and held that a prisoner's administrative challenge concerning the conditions of confinement was constitutionally protected.

    Friedl v. City of New York · Second Circuit · filed

    Nothing in Lewis forecloses an administrative challenge by a prisoner to the conditions of his confinement, and we decline to follow the restrictive interpretation placed on Lewis by the Sixth Circuit in Thaddeus-X, since not every “challenge to the conditions of confinement” takes the form of a civil rights action.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Thaddeus-X and Earnest Bell, Jr. v. Blatter 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