Case Citator › Michael G. Levine v. Patricia Torvik, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Intervenor-Appellant

Michael G. Levine v. Patricia Torvik, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Intervenor-Appellant

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

Abrogated
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
986 F.2d 1506
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
93 of 93
Citing cases (total)
93
Treatment dates
2000
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Michael G. Levine v. Patricia Torvik was abrogated on the treatment of competency determinations in federal habeas review. After Thompson v. Keohane, the Sixth Circuit in Mackey v. Dutton expressly identified Levine's contrary holding and held that state-court competency findings receive the former § 2254(d) presumption of correctness.
More on how this was screened

Levine's other federal-habeas, fair-presentation, civil-commitment, and state-law-error holdings were not addressed. The treatment is listed below; all 93 flagged citations have been read.

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.

93 later cases cite Michael G. Levine v. Patricia Torvik, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Intervenor-Appellant; 93 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 Michael G. Levine v. Patricia Torvik, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Intervenor-Appellant?

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 Sixth Circuit held under intervening Supreme Court authority that state-court competency determinations receive a presumption of correctness, rejecting Levine's contrary rule.

    Mackey v. Dutton · Sixth Circuit · filed

    see also Levine v. Torvik, 986 F.2d 1506, 1514 ... (“A number of courts have held that the question of mental competency is a mixed question of law and fact. We agree. Because the state court’s determination that Levine was mentally ill and dangerous was a mixed question of fact and law, it is not entitled to section 2254(d)’s presumption of correctness.” ... Because Thompson, which was decided after this court’s decision in Cremeans, clearly instructs that competency should be treated as a question of fact, we follow that instruction and now hold that § 2254(d)’s presumption of correctness applies to a trial court’s competency determination.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Michael G. Levine v. Patricia Torvik, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Intervenor-Appellant 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