Case Citator › Ortloff v. United States

Ortloff v. United States

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

Overruled in part
Court
Seventh Circuit
Citation
335 F.3d 652
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
35 of 35
Citing cases (total)
35
Treatment dates
2008
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Ortloff v. United States's narrow reading of the Federal Tort Claims Act exception for detained property is no longer good law; its access-to-courts requirement of specific prejudice remains in use. All 35 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Seventh Circuit explained in Parrott v. United States that the Supreme Court rejected Ortloff's narrow reading in Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Supreme Court's ruling is listed below.

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.

35 later cases cite Ortloff v. United States; 35 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 Ortloff v. United States?

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 Ortloff's rule that the property-detention exception covers only officers performing customs or excise functions, holding that it covers all law enforcement officers.

    Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Petitioner contends that this clause applies only to law enforcement officers enforcing customs or excise laws, and thus does not affect the waiver of sovereign immunity for his property claim against officers of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). We conclude that the broad phrase “any other law enforcement officer” covers all law enforcement officers.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Ortloff v. United States 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