In Re John W. Byrd Jr, 21 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re John W. Byrd Jr, 21 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Henney v. Rumfield (In Re Henney) (miwd, 2011-04-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Henney v. Rumfield (In Re Henney)
W.D. Mich. · 2011 · signal: accord · confidence high
Zahra, Cavanagh, Fitzgerald) (citing Howell v. Vito’s Trucking & Excavating Co., 386 Mich. 37, 42 , 191 N.W.2d 313 (Mich.1971)); accord Dietrich v. Sun Exploration & Production Co., Nos. 92-1981 & 93-1442, 21 F.3d 427 , 1994 WL 108961 (6th Cir. Mar.30, 1994) (C.J.
cited Cited "see" GUNASEKERA v. Irwin
S.D. Ohio · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Al-Jabbar A’La v. Atwood, 21 F.3d 427 (6th Cir.1994) (concluding that a plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages of $1 even if he cannot show compensatory damages).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Taylor v. City of Saginaw
E.D. Mich. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
They are instead the damages awarded by default until the plaintiff establishes entitlement to some other form of damages, such as compensatory or statutory damages.”); Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 , 266–67 (1978) (holding that due-process violations are actionable for nominal damages despite lack of an “actual injury”); see also A’La v. Atwood, 21 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 1994) (unpublished table decision) (“Because the jury found a violation of Al-Jabbar’s Fourth Amendment rights, he is entitled to one dollar in nominal damages.”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Slone v. Lincoln County
E.D. Ky. · 2017 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Dabbs v. Bolin, 21 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 1994).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. E.J. Sacco, Inc.
E.D. Mich. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Dabbs v. Bolin, 21 F.3d 427 (Table), 1994 WL 95928 at *3 (6th Cir. March 23, 1994) (unpublished opinion); Detroit-Macomb Hosp., 1992 WL 6099 at *4-5; compare EEOC v. Shoney’s Inc., 28 F.3d 1213 (Table), 1994 WL 325995 at *1-6 (6th Cir. July 5, 1994) (unpublished opinion) (defendant’s attorney fees not warranted where EEOC acted properly by voluntarily dismissing complaint once discovery demonstrated no evidentiary support for discrimination claim).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re John W. Byrd Jr
94-3251.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Mar 24, 1994.
21 F.3d 427
Published

21 F.3d 427
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

In re John W. BYRD Jr.

No. 94-3251.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 24, 1994.

Before: JONES, SUHRHEINRICH, and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

Petitioner seeks a stay of execution of his pending death sentence. On March 14, 1994, this court, following a denial of Petitioner's stay application by District Judge Carl B. Rubin, granted Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Stay of Execution. We now adhere to the relief granted on that issue. We also conclude that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is before the district court. Upon further consideration, we find that Petitioner's requests for further relief in the form of an abeyance of the habeas proceedings until the Supreme Court could address one of the claims implicated in the habeas action, stay of the habeas proceedings to permit further investigation and discovery and allowance of costs for that investigation, and leave to amend the habeas petition to include any newly discovered claims, were not properly before this court, and must be addressed by the district court.

2

Accordingly, we amend our prior order as follows:

3

1. The Motion for Emergency Stay of Execution is granted for a period of 120 days.

4

2. The remainder of the order is vacated.

5

3. We request that the Honorable John D. Holschuh, Chief Judge of the Southern District of Ohio, reassign the pending habeas petition to another District Judge.

6

4. The District Judge to whom this matter is reassigned is instructed to consider the pending habeas petition on its merits, and to make the appropriate findings on all remaining issues including Petitioner's application for funds for further discovery and investigation pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 848(q).