Case Citator › Alvera M. Aldabe v. Charles D. Aldabe

Alvera M. Aldabe v. Charles D. Aldabe

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

Declined by some courts
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
616 F.2d 1089
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
43 of 43
Citing cases (total)
43
Treatment dates
1993
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Aldabe v. Aldabe remains binding in the Ninth Circuit, but the Third Circuit declined to follow its restriction on appointing counsel for indigent civil litigants; the confirmed treatment is listed below. All 43 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Later courts continued to apply Aldabe's other holdings, including its rules on civil claims under federal criminal statutes and pleading facts for each defendant.

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.

43 later cases cite Alvera M. Aldabe v. Charles D. Aldabe; 43 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 Alvera M. Aldabe v. Charles D. Aldabe?

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 rejected Aldabe's rule that a court may appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) only in exceptional circumstances.

    Tabron v. Grace · Third Circuit · filed

    Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.1980) (“[Tjhis court has limited the exercise of [the power to appoint counsel under § 1915(d)] to exceptional circumstances.”) (citations omitted); Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir.1975) (“In civil actions the appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional eases”). To the extent that these cases impose a substantive restriction on the district courts’ discretion to appoint counsel under § 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 Alvera M. Aldabe v. Charles D. Aldabe 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