Case Citator › Dusky v. United States

Dusky v. United States

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

Limited by some courtsin review
114 of 116 flagged citations read · 98.3%
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
362 U.S. 402
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
114 of 116
Citing cases (total)
116
Treatment dates
1966
Limited by some courts · in review
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Dusky v. United States is limited in one decision listed below. Mordecai v. United States held that Dusky's bar on curing an inadequate competency determination through a later hearing did not control a collateral attack on a conviction.
More on how this was screened

The case is still in review: 114 of 116 flagged citations have been read, and the text needed to assess two citing opinions could not be retrieved in a form that shows the indexed citation. The reviewed courts otherwise applied Dusky's competency test.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
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.

116 later cases cite Dusky v. United States; 116 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; the progress bar above tracks how many have been read so far. 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 Dusky 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

Limited

  • The court held that Dusky's rule against curing an inadequate competency determination through a retrospective hearing did not control a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

    Mordecai v. United States · D.D.C. · filed

    The cases of Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960); and Wider v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 129, 348 F.2d 358 (1965), are not contra. These cases, holding that inadequate determinations of competency cannot be cured by nunc pro tunc hearings, involved direct appeals and are not controlling in the instant proceeding which involves collateral attack.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Dusky 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