Case Citator › Cockrell v. Sparks

Cockrell v. Sparks

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

Abrogated
Court
Eleventh Circuit
Citation
510 F.3d 1307
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
28 of 28
Citing cases (total)
28
Treatment dates
2015
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Cockrell v. Sparks was abrogated on the test for excessive force against a pretrial detainee. Cockrell required force applied maliciously and sadistically; the Supreme Court later held in Kingsley v. Hendrickson that purposeful or knowing force violates the Fourteenth Amendment when it is objectively unreasonable.
More on how this was screened

Cockrell's separate rule allowing denial of a futile complaint amendment continues to be applied. The confirmed treatment is listed below. All 28 flagged citations have been read.

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.

28 later cases cite Cockrell v. Sparks; 28 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 Cockrell v. Sparks?

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 displaced Cockrell's subjective malicious purpose requirement for a pretrial detainee's excessive force claim with an objective reasonableness test.

    Kingsley v. Hendrickson · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    It is with respect to this question that we hold that courts must use an *2473objective standard. In short, we agree with the dissenting appeals court judge, the Seventh Circuit's jury instruction committee, and Kingsley, that a pretrial detainee must show only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Cockrell v. Sparks 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