Van Woudenberg ex rel. Foor v. Gibson
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The later citing opinions either applied Van Woudenberg positively or merely reported McGregor's abrogation in a history parenthetical; none independently adversely treated Van Woudenberg.
181 later cases cite Van Woudenberg ex rel. Foor v. Gibson; 119 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 Van Woudenberg ex rel. Foor v. Gibson?
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 en banc Tenth Circuit abrogated Van Woudenberg's requirement that a habeas petitioner show the trial court “ignored facts” raising a bona fide doubt about competency, replacing it with an inquiry into whether the trial court failed to give proper weight to information suggesting incompetence.
McGregor v. Gibson · Tenth Circuit · filed
The question is not, as we have sometimes stated, whether the trial court “ignored facts,” see, e.g., Van Woudenberg, 211 F.3d at 567, but rather whether the trial court “fail[ed] to give proper weight to the information suggesting incompetence which came to light during trial.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Van Woudenberg ex rel. Foor v. Gibson 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