Arthur v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 14 (2016). · Go Syfert
Search
Arthur v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 14 (2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cherry v. Strategic Properties of North America, LLC (caed, 2023-02-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cherry v. Strategic Properties of North America, LLC (2×)
E.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
Bristol- 13 Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, San Francisco Cty., ––– U.S. –––, 137 S. Ct. 14 1773, 1780 (2017); Picot, 780 F.3d at 1211 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Debra Haaland
D.C. Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
NLRB v. SW Gen., Inc., 137 S. Ct. 14 929, 940 (2017) (cleaned up).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. Williams (2×)
S.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
“In Bivens, the Supreme Court 11 ‘recognized for the first time an implied right of action for damages against federal 12 officers alleged to have violated a citizen’s constitutional rights.’” Vega v. United States, 13 881 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Hernandez v. Mesa, __ U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 14 2003, 2006 (2017) (citation omitted)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McCarthy v. Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48
D. Ariz. · 2019 · confidence medium
Fry, 137 S. Ct. 14 at 757.
cited Cited "see" Tremaine Daniels v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
C.D. Cal. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 14 at 1855, 1864 (citing Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 , 100 S. Ct. 1468 , 64 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thomas D. ARTHUR
v.
Jefferson S. DUNN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections
No. 16-602 (16a451)..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 3, 2016.
137 S. Ct. 14
Published

The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is granted pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In[*15] the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

Statement of the Chief Justice respecting the grant of the application for stay.

I do not believe that this application meets our ordinary criteria for a stay. This case does not merit the Court's review: the claims set out in the application are purely fact specific, dependent on contested interpretations of state law, insulated from our review by alternative holdings below, or some combination of the three. Four Justices have, however, voted to grant a stay. To afford them the opportunity to more fully consider the suitability of this case for review, including these circumstances, I vote to grant the stay as a courtesy.

Justice THOMAS and Justice ALITO would deny the application.