Citation network
Lonchar Vs. Thomas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 01, 1996
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 314 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Lonchar V. ThomasSearch
-
equitable doctrines independent of Rule 9 applied, relying chiefly on this Court's per curiam order in Gomez v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
The principle of Barefoot v. EstelleSearch
-
that regularize and thereby narrow the discretion that individual judges can freely exercise. See, e. g., McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
s framers, which courts may not undermine through the exercise of background equitable powers. See Bank of Nova Scotia v. UnitedSearch
-
does not lead to a different conclusion. Gomez, supra, at 654, and, e. g., Sawyer v. WhitleySearch
-
applied, relying chiefly on this Court's per curiam order in Gomez v. UnitedSearch
-
by an execution, even though the court lacked the authority to dispose of the petition on the merits. In Barefoot v. EstelleSearch
-
F. 3d, at 593. The concurrence argues that the Court's decision in Gomez v. UnitedSearch
-
gradual evolution of more formal judicial, statutory, or rules-based doctrines of law. See, e. g., McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
Sanders v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 731 , 756-758 (1888), but also application of basic constitutional doctrines of fairness, see Jones v. CunninghamSearch
-
of 323 its own legal processes. Withrow v. WilliamsSearch
-
is normally for Congress to make, but which courts will make when Congress has not resolved the question. See Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
U. S. 70 , 127 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring). See also Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySearch
-
Id., at 496 (quoting Brown v. AllenSearch
-
Townsend, supra, at 313. See also Coleman v. ThompsonSearch
-
the Rule which courts may not undermine through the exercise of background equitable powers. See Bank of Nova Scotia v. UnitedSearch
-
quoting United States v. PaynerSearch
-
Cf. McCarthy v. MadiganSearch
-
exception, rather than through congressional legislation or through the formal rulemaking process. See Vasquez v. HillerySearch
-
has been adopted). Fourth, contrary to the Court of Appeals' view, we do not believe that this Court, in Gomez v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S., at 654. And this Court has made similar statements in other cases. See, e. g., Sawyer v. WhitleySearch
-
motives) that is often unanswerable and the very asking of which may encourage and reward the disingenuous. See Murray v. CarrierSearch
-
Ante, at 319. This statement, I believe, misreads our opinion in Barefoot v. EstelleSearch
-
U. S. 880 (1983), and ignores our reasoning in Gomez v. UnitedSearch
-
s likelihood of success is one factor to be considered in determining whether a stay should be entered. See Hilton v. BraunskillSearch
-
Brown v. AllenSearch
-
U. S. 443 , 459 (1953), and long before this Court declined to declare the death penalty unconstitutional, in Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U. S. 153 (1976), Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
U. S. 242 (1976), and Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
by a petitioner to manipulate the district court into granting relief where relief is clearly precluded. In Gomez v. UnitedSearch
-
an obvious attempt to avoid the application of McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
its judgment by exploiting the fact that ordinary principles of res judicata do not apply in habeas corpus. McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
merits has enough merit for the class plaintiffs to have prevailed in district court and the court of appeals. Fierro v. GomezSearch
-
stay must be granted if a first federal habeas petition is not dismissed, the Court relies on our decision in Barefoot v. EstelleSearch
-
control over his habeas claims, because our case law required the District Court to establish as much. See Whitmore v. ArkansasSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial