Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 429 F.3d 572 - White v. Johnson

White v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

429 F.3d 572 · 2005

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 2019
most recently cited

24 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Nelson v. Campbell Commissioner Alabama Department of Corrections et al. · Gomez v. United States District Court for Northern District of California a-767 · Bazrowx v. Scott · Underwood v. Wilson · Harris v. Johnson

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “been on death row for more than six years”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[T]he mere fact that an inmate states a cognizable § 1983 claim does not warrant the entry of a stay as a matter of right ... [a] court may consider the last-minute nature of an application to stay execution in deciding whether to grant equitable relief.” We do not decide whether Harris properly states a claim under § 1988, because even if he does, he is not entitled to the equitable relief he seeks. Harris has been on death row for eighteen,, years, yet has chosen only this moment, with his execution imminent, to challenge a procedure for lethal injection that the state has used for an even longer period of time .... Harris cannot excuse his delaying until the eleventh hour on the ground that he was unaware of the state’s intention to execute him by injecting the three chemicals he now challenges.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A stay is an equitable remedy, and equity must take into consideration the State’s strong interest in proceeding with its judgment and ... attempts at manipulation. Thus, before granting a stay, a district court must consider not only the likelihood of success on the merits and the relative harms to the parties, but also the extent to which the inmate has delayed unnecessarily in bringing the claim. Given the State’s significant interest in enforcing its criminal judgments, there is a strong equitable presumption against the grant of a stay where a claim could have been brought at such a time as to allow consideration of the merits without requiring entry of a stay.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.