Citation network
Miller Vs. French
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 18, 2000
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. 327 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Miller, Superintendent, Pendleton Correctional Facility, Et Al. V. FrenchSearch
-
Together with No. 99-582, United States v. FrenchSearch
-
where, as here, Congress has made its intent clear, this Court must give effect to that intent. Sinclair Refining Co. v. AtkinsonSearch
-
not merely to rule on cases, but to decide them, subject to review only by superior Article III courts. Plaut v. SpendthriftSearch
-
a continuing, executory decree remains subject to alteration due to changes in the underlying law. Cf. Landgraf v. USISearch
-
Film Products, 511 U. S. 244 , 273. This conclusion follows from the Court's decision in Pennsylvania v. WheelingSearch
-
Belmont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421, 432 (Wheeling Bridge II), that prospective relief it issued in Pennsylvania v. WheelingSearch
-
e)(2) does not violate the separation of powers principle articulated in United States v. KleinSearch
-
against cruel and unusual punishment, and the court issued an injunction to correct those violations. French v. OwensSearch
-
CA7 1985). While the State's appeal was pending, this Court decided Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
see also French v. DuckworthSearch
-
e)(2) directly suspends a court order in violation of the separation of powers doctrine under Plaut v. SpendthriftSearch
-
b)(2) termination motion, contrary to United States v. KleinSearch
-
e)(2), so construed, is unconstitutional. Compare Ruiz v. JohnsonSearch
-
Hadix v. JohnsonSearch
-
Communications Workers v. BeckSearch
-
indicates that the stay is mandatory throughout that period of time. See Lexecon Inc. v. MilbergSearch
-
e)(4). See Ruiz v. JohnsonSearch
-
Ruiz v. JohnsonSearch
-
Whitehouse v. IllinoisSearch
-
right to the issuance of the writ. See Mallard v. UnitedSearch
-
to the contrary, Porter v. WarnerSearch
-
Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. FloridaSearch
-
U. S. 84 , 96 (1985) (quoting George Moore Ice Cream Co. v. RoseSearch
-
see also Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. YeskeySearch
-
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. SchorSearch
-
of the Constitution that exemplifies the concept of separation of powers. INS v. ChadhaSearch
-
at 951, the Constitution prohibits one branch from encroaching on the central prerogatives of another, see Loving v. UnitedSearch
-
during good behavior, and whose compensation shall not be diminished during tenure in office. As we explained in Plaut v. SpendthriftSearch
-
see also Morrison v. OlsonSearch
-
U. S., at 224 (quoting Bates v. KimballSearch
-
damages. Id., at 213. While that action was pending, we ruled in Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. GilbertsonSearch
-
Id., at 227 (quoting United States v. SchoonerSearch
-
executory decree remains subject to alteration due to changes in the underlying law. Cf. Land- 345 graf v. USISearch
-
This conclusion follows from our decisions in Pennsylvania v. WheelingSearch
-
Belmont Bridge Co., 13 How. 518 (1852) (Wheeling Bridge 1), and Pennsylvania v. WheelingSearch
-
in the statutory scheme by establishing new standards for prospective relief. See Berwanger v. CotteySearch
-
by findings and precisely tailored to what is needed to remedy the violation of a federal right. See Benjamin v. JacobsonSearch
-
Imprisoned Citizens Union v. RidgeSearch
-
Tyler v. MurphySearch
-
Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. RouseSearch
-
jurisdiction of the court, and therefore may be altered according to subsequent changes in the law. See Rufo v. InmatesSearch
-
see also Railway Employees v. WrightSearch
-
Syllabus Miller, Superintendent, Pendleton Correctional Facility, Et Al. V. FrenchSearch
-
United States v. FrenchSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial