Gibson v. Tolbert

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to appoint counsel where civil case did not involve exceptional circumstances
• holding that “inmate suits against prison personnel, rather than rare and unusual, are common” and, therefore, such suits do not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting appointed counsel
• recognizing that various courts of appeals have stated that trial court has discretion to appoint counsel in civil cases in which exceptional circumstances exist, and assuming that such discretionary authority exists
• recognizing that exceptional circumstances might warrant appointment of counsel in civil cases
• holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to appoint counsel to represent inmate in medical malpractice suit against prison doctor because inmate suits against prison officials are common
• holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to appoint counsel to represent inmate in medical malpractice suit against prison doctor because inmate suits against prison officials are common

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).