Bozeman v. Orum
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The one confirmed treatment is listed below. Bozeman's separate ruling on delayed medical care remains in use, as does its conclusion that force continued after surrender can be excessive.
50 later cases cite Bozeman v. Orum; 50 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 Bozeman v. Orum?
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 Supreme Court replaced Bozeman's requirement that a pretrial detainee prove a malicious or sadistic use of force with an objective reasonableness test.
Kingsley v. Hendrickson · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
In light of disagreement among the Circuits, we agreed to do so. Compare, e.g., Murray v. Johnson No. 260,367 Fed.Appx. 196, 198 (C.A.2 2010); Bozeman v. Orum,422 F.3d 1265, 1271 (C.A.11 2005)(per curiam), with Aldini v. Johnson,609 F.3d 858, 865-866 (C.A.6 2010); Young v. Wolfe,478 Fed.Appx. 354, 356 (C.A.9 2012). ... We conclude with respect to that question that the relevant standard is objective not subjective. Thus, the defendant's state of mind is not a matter that a plaintiff is required to prove.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Bozeman v. Orum 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