Case Citator › Whisenant v. Yuam

Whisenant v. Yuam

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

Abrogated
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
739 F.2d 160
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
314 of 314
Citing cases (total)
521
Treatment dates
1989
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Whisenant v. Yuam was abrogated on its reading of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d): the Supreme Court held that the statute does not permit compulsory appointment of counsel, placing Whisenant on the other side of the circuit split. All 314 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatment is listed below.
More on how this was screened

Whisenant's other holdings, including its pretrial-detainee medical-care analysis, were not addressed by that ruling.

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.

521 later cases cite Whisenant v. Yuam; 314 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 Whisenant v. Yuam?

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 Supreme Court rejected Whisenant's view that § 1915(d) authorizes compulsory appointment of counsel.

    Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We are called upon to decide whether 28 U. S. C. § 1915(d) authorizes a federal court to require an unwilling attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a civil case. We hold that it does not. ... Compare, e. g., Caruth v. Pinkney, 683 F. 2d 1044, 1049 (CA7 1982) (§ 1915(d) does not authorize compulsory appointments), cert denied, 459 U. S. 1214 (1983); United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F. 2d 796, 801-803 (CA9 1986) (same), with, e. g., Peterson v. Nadler, 452 F. 2d 754, 757 (CA8 1971) (§ 1915(d) permits mandatory assignments); Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F. 2d 160, 163, n. 3 (CA4 1984) (same).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Whisenant v. Yuam 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