Citation network
Whitmore Vs. Arkansas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 24, 1990
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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
-
U.S. 149 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Whitmore v. ArkansasSearch
-
U.S. 149 (1990) Whitmore v. ArkansasSearch
-
Simon v. EasternSearch
-
of possible future injury that have been found insufficient to establish Art. III injury-in-fact. See, e.g., O'Shea v. LittletonSearch
-
U. S. 488 . United States v. SCRAPSearch
-
See Franz v. StateSearch
-
prevent Simmons' execution, but the petition was denied on the ground that Franz and Hill did not have standing. Franz v. LockhartSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
affirmed the trial court's decision that Simmons had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal. Simmons v. StateSearch
-
The court concluded that Whitmore had failed to show he had standing to intervene, and it denied the motion. Simmons v. StateSearch
-
to prevent the execution of a capital defendant who has decided to forgo further judicial proceedings. In Gilmore v. UtahSearch
-
Gilmore, we have been presented with other applications from third parties for stays of execution, see Lenhard v. WolffSearch
-
those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the judicial process. See Valley Forge Christian College v. AmericansSearch
-
Los Angeles v. LyonsSearch
-
Simmons' similar right. Under either theory, Whitmore must establish Art. III standing, see Secretary of State of Md. v. JosephSearch
-
has already been convicted of murder and sentenced to death, has exhausted his direct appellate review, see Whitmore v. StateSearch
-
Ark. 308, 756 S.W.2d 890 (1988), and has been denied state postconviction relief, Whitmore v. StateSearch
-
injury is at least as speculative as others we have found insufficient to establish Art. III injury in fact. In O'Shea v. LittletonSearch
-
U.S. at 461 U. S. 105 , on the prospective future candidacy of a former Congressman, Golden v. ZwicklerSearch
-
and on police using deadly force against a person fleeing from an as yet uneffected arrest. Ashcroft v. MattisSearch
-
U. S. 171 , 431 U. S. 172 , n. 2 (1977). Recently, in Diamond v. CharlesSearch
-
insufficient to invoke the federal judicial power. Id. at 476 U. S. 66 (quoting Simon v. EasternSearch
-
to constitute injury in fact. Babbitt v. FarmSearch
-
Workers, 442 U. S. 289 , 442 U. S. 298 (1979) (quoting Pennsylvania v. WestSearch
-
the most attenuated injury conferring Article III standing was that asserted by the respondents in United States v. SCRAPSearch
-
Schlesinger v. ReservistsSearch
-
to grant petitioner standing to proceed. To dispose of this claim, we need do no more than quote our decision in Allen v. WrightSearch
-
Accord, Valley Forge College v. AmericansSearch
-
quoting Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
usually because of mental incompetence or inaccessibility, to seek relief themselves. E.g., United States ex rel. Toth v. QuarlesSearch
-
See Astaby v. WhiteSearch
-
standing in connection with petitions for writs of habeas corpus, see, e.g., Collins v. TraegerSearch
-
Funaro v. WatchornSearch
-
but simply pursues the cause on behalf of the detained person, who remains the real party in interest. Morgan v. PotterSearch
-
Hashimoto v. MacArthurSearch
-
or other disability -- why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action. Wilson v. LaneSearch
-
Missouri Public Defender Comm'n v. ArmontroutSearch
-
Weber v. GarzaSearch
-
must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate, see, e.g., Morris v. UnitedSearch
-
must have some significant relationship with the real party in interest. Davis v. AustinSearch
-
Harries v. DuttonSearch
-
Bryant v. HoustonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Whitmore v. ArkansasSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial