Case Citator › Newsome v. McCabe

Newsome v. McCabe

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

Overruled in part
Court
Seventh Circuit
Citation
256 F.3d 747
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
51 of 51
Citing cases (total)
51
Treatment dates
2017
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. All 51 flagged citations to Newsome v. McCabe have been read. The Supreme Court's decision in Manuel v. City of Joliet displaced Newsome's rule that the Fourth Amendment cannot support an unlawful pretrial detention claim after legal process begins.
More on how this was screened

The Seventh Circuit recognized this change in Mitchell v. City of Elgin. The confirmed treatment is listed below; Manuel left the claim's accrual question open and did not address Newsome's separate conclusions about due process and withheld evidence.

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.

51 later cases cite Newsome v. McCabe; 51 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 Newsome v. McCabe?

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 Newsome's rule barring Fourth Amendment claims for unlawful pretrial detention after the start of legal process, while leaving accrual for remand.

    Manuel v. City of Joliet · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Binding Circuit precedent, the District Court explained, made clear that pretrial detention following the start of legal process could not give rise to a Fourth Amendment claim. See id., at *1 (citing, e.g., Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747, 750 (C.A.7 2001) ). ... As reflected in Albright 's tracking of Gerstein 's analysis, pretrial detention can violate the Fourth Amendment not only when it precedes, but also when it follows, the start of legal process in a criminal case. ... And for that reason, it cannot extinguish the detainee's Fourth Amendment claim-or somehow, as the Seventh Circuit has held, convert that claim into one founded on the Due Process Clause. See 590 Fed.Appx., at 643-644.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Newsome v. McCabe 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