Case Citator › Lavado v. Keohane

Lavado v. Keohane

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

Declined by some courts
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
992 F.2d 601
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
46 of 46
Citing cases (total)
46
Treatment dates
1993
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Lavado v. Keohane was declined by another circuit on one point. All 46 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Third Circuit's decision in Tabron v. Grace, listed below, rejected an exceptional circumstances requirement as a substantive restriction on appointing counsel for an indigent civil litigant. Lavado remains binding in the Sixth Circuit, where courts continue to apply that requirement. Its rulings on legal mail and other issues also continue to be cited. Two indexed versions of Tabron v. Grace (654205 and 7026784) contain the same opinion; it is listed once. The initially unavailable Diemond v. Nagy opinion was retrieved and read. Most references to overruling concern litigants' objections or other decisions.

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.

46 later cases cite Lavado v. Keohane; 46 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 Lavado v. Keohane?

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 Lavado insofar as it restricted appointment of civil counsel to exceptional circumstances.

    Tabron v. Grace · Third Circuit · filed

    See, e.g., Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-06 (6th Cir.1993) ... 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 Lavado v. Keohane 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