Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Murdaugh Vs. Livingston

Murdaugh vs Livingston

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Nov-18-1998
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/107805

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
525 U.S. 1301
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Murdaugh

Respondent

Livingston

Excerpt

murdaugh v. livingston - 525 u.s. 1301 (1998) october term, 1998 syllabus murdaugh, solicitor, 14th judicial circuit of south carolina, et al. v. livingston on application to vacate stay no. a-396. decided november 18, 1998 the state's application to vacate an october 20, 1998, temporary restraining order enjoining it from proceeding with indictments against respondent is denied without prejudice. under federal rule of civil procedure 65, such an order ordinarily cannot remain in effect for more than 10 days. here, the magistrate judge has recommended dismissal, and the matter appears to be pending before the district court. should that court issue a preliminary injunction or further stay the proceedings, the state may renew its application. chief justice rehnquist, circuit justice. the district court in this case entered a temporary restraining order on october 20, 1998, against the state, enjoining it from proceeding further with the indictments against respondent. pursuant to rule 65 of the federal rules of civil procedure, a temporary restraining order cannot remain in effect for more than 10 days unless extended for good cause by the district court or consented to by the adverse party. i am advised that the magistrate judge to whom this case was assigned has recommended dismissal, and, so far as i know, the matter is now pending before the district court. i therefore deny the state's application to vacate the stay, without prejudice to its renewal should the district court issue a preliminary injunction or further stay the criminal proceedings.

Full Judgment

Murdaugh v. Livingston - 525 U.S. 1301 (1998)

OCTOBER TERM, 1998

SYLLABUS

MURDAUGH, SOLICITOR, 14TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ET AL. v. LIVINGSTON

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY

No. A-396. Decided November 18, 1998

The State's application to vacate an October 20, 1998, temporary restraining order enjoining it from proceeding with indictments against respondent is denied without prejudice. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, such an order ordinarily cannot remain in effect for more than 10 days. Here, the Magistrate Judge has recommended dismissal, and the matter appears to be pending before the District Court. Should that court issue a preliminary injunction or further stay the proceedings, the State may renew its application.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice.

The District Court in this case entered a temporary restraining order on October 20, 1998, against the State, enjoining it from proceeding further with the indictments against respondent. Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a temporary restraining order cannot remain in effect for more than 10 days unless extended for good cause by the district court or consented to by the adverse party. I am advised that the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned has recommended dismissal, and, so far as I know, the matter is now pending before the District Court. I therefore deny the State's application to vacate the stay, without prejudice to its renewal should the District Court issue a preliminary injunction or further stay the criminal proceedings.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial