Case Citator › Ned Hughes v. Charles Lott

Ned Hughes v. Charles Lott

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

Abrogated
Court
Eleventh Circuit
Citation
350 F.3d 1157
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
222 of 222
Citing cases (total)
833
Treatment dates
2021
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Hughes v. Lott has been abrogated in part: all 222 flagged citations have been read, and the 1 confirmed treatment is listed below. The Eleventh Circuit recognized that Twombly and Iqbal displaced Hughes's Conley-era “no set of facts” standard for pleading around a limitations bar under § 1915.
More on how this was screened

The reviewed opinions otherwise applied Hughes positively on Heck's effect on Fourth Amendment claims, nominal damages, liberal construction of pro se pleadings, limitations, and § 1915 screening, or used nearby adverse language for other authorities and rulings.

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.

833 later cases cite Ned Hughes v. Charles Lott; 222 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 Ned Hughes v. Charles Lott?

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 recognized that Twombly and Iqbal abrogated Hughes's Conley-based standard for pleading facts that avoid a statute-of-limitations bar under § 1915.

    Ansel Wre Johnson v. Samuel Culpepper · Eleventh Circuit · filed

    However, the standard articulated in Hughes was based on the Conley standard for 12(b)(6) motions, which was abrogated by Twombly and Iqbal. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562, 127 S. Ct. at 1969. Thus, the standard articulated in Hughes for determining whether a plaintiff has adequately pled that he falls within the statute of limitations is no longer good law under Twombly and Iqbal.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Ned Hughes v. Charles Lott 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