White v. Florida, 458 U.S. 1301 (1982). · Go Syfert
Search
White v. Florida, 458 U.S. 1301 (1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“although white's application establishes that he may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future, there is no indication that the harm is imminent.”
33 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians v. United States Department of the Interior (dcd, 2025-02-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians v. United States Department of the Interior
D.D.C. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
although white's application establishes that he may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future, there is no indication that the harm is imminent.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC
9th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
To obtain a stay of the mandate pending certiorari under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d), Google is required to show 1) “a reasonable probability that four members of the Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious for the grant of certiorari[;]” 2) “a significant possibility of reversal of the lower court’s decision;” and 3) “a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if that decision is not stayed.” White v. Florida, 458 U.S. 1301, 1302 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo
SCOTUS · 2025 · confidence medium
In any event, the Govern- ment has only “offer[ed] a series of hypothetical” enforce- ment actions that, “it thinks, might be chilled”; it has not “provid[ed] concrete proof that ‘harm is imminent.’ ” Murthy v. Missouri, 601 U. S. ___ , ___ (2023) (ALITO, J., joined by THOMAS, J., and GORSUCH, J., dissenting from grant of application for stay) (slip op., at 3) (quoting White v. Florida, 458 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in cham- bers)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
D.D.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
Thus while Plaintiffs’ motion “establishes that [their members] may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future, there is no indication that the harm is imminent.” White v. Florida, 458 U.S. 1301, 1302 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blue Spirits Distilling, LLC v. Luctor International, L.L.C.
W.D. Ky. · 2024 · confidence medium
Simply put, preliminary injunctive relief “is unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat the plaintiff will be wronged.” City of Loas Angeles v. Lyons, 461 US. 95, 111 (1983); White v. Florida, 458 U.S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (movant must establish that harm is imminent); Abney v. Amgen, Inc., 443 F.3d 540, 552 (6th Cir. 2006) (movants must show they will “suffer ‘actual and imminent’ harm rather than harm that is speculative or unsubstantiated.”); Charlesbank Equity Fund II. v. Blinds To…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Murthy v. Missouri (2×)
SCOTUS · 2023 · confidence medium
Instead of providing any concrete proof that “harm is im- minent,” White v. Florida, 458 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers), the Government offers a series of hypothetical statements that a covered official might want to make in the future and that, it thinks, might be chilled.
cited Cited as authority (rule) CURRY Et Al. v. BAKER, CHAIRMAN OF ALABAMA STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, Et Al.
SCOTUS · 1986 · confidence medium
White v. Florida, 458 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maggio v. Williams (2×)
SCOTUS · 1983 · confidence medium
A stay application addressed to a Circuit Justice or to the Court will be granted only if there exists “ ‘a reasonable probability that four members of the Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious for the grant of certiorari or the notation of probable jurisdiction.’” White v. Florida, 458 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers) (quoting Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. v. Schulingkamp, 419 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1974) (Powell, J., in chambers)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barefoot v. Estelle (2×)
SCOTUS · 1983 · confidence medium
It is well established that there “ 'must be a reasonable probability that four Members of the Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious for the grant of certiorari or the notation of probable jurisdiction; there must be a significant possibility of reversal of the lower court’s decision; and there must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if that decision is not stayed.’” White v. Florida, 458 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers) (quoting Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. v. Schulingkamp, 419 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1974) (POWELL, J., in cham…
cited Cited "see" LUCAS Et Al. v. TOWNSEND Et Al.
SCOTUS · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. Florida, 458 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers); Rostker v. Goldberg, 448 U. S. 1306, 1308 (1980) (Brennan, J., in chambers).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Federal Education Association v. Donald Trump
D.C. Cir. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, 454 F.3d at 297 ; see also White v. Florida, 458 U.S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers) (denying stay application because “[a]lthough [the applicant] establishe[d] that he may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future, there [wa]s no indication that the harm [wa]s imminent”); cf. Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 410 (2013) (explaining, in the standing context, that an injury is not “imminent” if it “relies on a highly attenuated chain of possibilities”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
White
v.
Florida
A-I30.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Aug 13, 1982.
458 U.S. 1301
Justice Powell.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
Justice Powell, Circuit Justice.

William White has requested me as Circuit Justice to stay the judgment and mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida pending filing and disposition of his petition for a writ of certiorari. A state trial court convicted White of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. The Florida Supreme Court upheld both the conviction and sentence. 415 So. 2d 719 (1982). It denied rehearing on July 8, 1982, and stayed the mandate until August 9, 1982, requiring White to seek any further stay from this Court.

In his application for a stay, filed by counsel, White states that he intends to file a petition for a writ of certiorari because the judgment affirming his conviction and sentence is “in violation of [the] rights secured by the Constitution of the United States.” His application does not suggest any more specific basis for seeking the writ. The only reason ad[*1138] vanced by White for staying the mandate is that, absent a stay, administrative proceedings culminating in the execution of his sentence will be instituted on August 9. The State has responded, however, that the threat of execution is not imminent. No execution date has been set, and the State does not contemplate that one will be set in the near future.

The standards for granting a stay of mandate pending disposition of a petition for certiorari are well established:

“[Tjhere must be a reasonable probability that four members of the Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious for the grant of certiorari or the notation of probable jurisdiction; there must be a significant possibility of reversal of the lower court’s decision; and there must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if that decision is not stayed.” Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. v. Schulingkamp, 419 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1974) (Powell, J., in chambers).

See Karcher v. Daggett, 455 U. S. 1303 (1982) (Brennan, J., in chambers); Whalen v. Roe, 423 U. S. 1313, 1316 — 1317 (1975) (Marshall, J., in chambers). Although White’s application establishes that he may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future, there is no indication that the harm is imminent. Additionally, White’s application does not specify either the issues for which certiorari will be sought or the reasons why review is appropriate. In the absence of such information, I am unable to determine whether there is a reasonable probability that four Members of the Court would find that this case merits review. Because there is no threat of imminent harm and no basis for determining whether certiorari would be granted, the request for a stay is denied.