Case Citator › Danley v. Allen

Danley v. Allen

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

Overruled in part
Court
Eleventh Circuit
Citation
540 F.3d 1298
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
81 of 81
Citing cases (total)
187
Treatment dates
2009–2015
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Danley v. Allen has been overruled in part: all 81 flagged citations have been read, with the 2 confirmed treatments listed below. Ashcroft v. Iqbal displaced Danley's heightened pleading requirement for Section 1983 claims against officials asserting qualified immunity, as the Eleventh Circuit recognized in Randall v. Scott.
More on how this was screened

Kingsley v. Hendrickson displaced Danley's subjective “maliciously and sadistically” standard for a pretrial detainee's excessive-force claim, as the Eleventh Circuit recognized in Piazza v. Jefferson County. Danley's separate holdings concerning pepper spray, inadequate decontamination, serious medical needs, supervisory causation, and force used after resistance ends remain in regular use. The other opinions applied those surviving holdings or copied history parentheticals reporting Iqbal's or Kingsley's intervening acts.

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.

187 later cases cite Danley v. Allen; 81 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 Danley v. Allen?

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's universal Rule 8 plausibility standard displaced Danley's special heightened pleading requirement for Section 1983 claims against officials asserting qualified immunity.

    Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id., at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id., at 556. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court replaced Danley's subjective excessive-force standard for pretrial detainees with a solely objective reasonableness test.

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

    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. ... 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 Danley v. Allen 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