Case Citator › Leroy Cook v. V. Lee Bounds, Com. Dept. Corrections

Leroy Cook v. V. Lee Bounds, Com. Dept. Corrections

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

Declined by some courts
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
518 F.2d 779
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
197 of 197
Citing cases (total)
426
Treatment dates
1993
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. All 197 flagged citations for Leroy Cook v. V. Lee Bounds, Commissioner, Department of Corrections have been read, with the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. Tabron v. Grace declined to follow Cook's exceptional-circumstances language to the extent it substantively restricted a district court's discretion to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
More on how this was screened

The other reviewed opinions applied Cook positively. Their nearby “abrogated” language concerned Whisenant v. Yuam's compelled-counsel language after Mallard v. United States District Court, not Cook.

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.

426 later cases cite Leroy Cook v. V. Lee Bounds, Com. Dept. Corrections; 197 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 Leroy Cook v. V. Lee Bounds, Com. Dept. Corrections?

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

Declined to follow

  • The Third Circuit declined to follow Cook to the extent its exceptional-circumstances rule imposed a substantive restriction on district courts' discretion to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

    Tabron v. Grace · Third Circuit · filed

    The defendants also rely on cases from other circuits which state that under Sec. 1915(d), appointment of counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant is justified only in "exceptional circumstances." ... Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir.1975) ("In civil actions the appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases."). ... To the extent that these cases impose a substantive restriction on the district courts' discretion to appoint counsel under Sec. 1915(d),4 we decline to follow them.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Leroy Cook v. V. Lee Bounds, Com. Dept. Corrections 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