green
Positive treatment
23.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Theodore Robert Bundy v. Richard L. Dugger, Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Florida
(2×)
But see Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 688 (11th Cir.1986) (petitioner not entitled to hearing on competency claim raised in second habeas petition where claim was raised at trial and no excuse exists for failure to raise it in first habeas petition).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Edward Thomas James v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
But “a grant of certiorari does not change the law.” Rutherford v. McDonough, 466 F.3d 970, 977 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Ritter v. Thigpen, 828 F.2d 662 , 665–66 (11th Cir. 1987); Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 689 (11th Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kelly Renee Gissendaner v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections
See, e.g., Rutherford v. McDonough, 466 F.3d 970, 977 (11th Cir.2006) (“[A] grant of certiorari does not change the law.”); Ritter v. Thigpen, 828 F.2d 662, 665-66 (11th Cir.1987) (“A grant of certiorari does not constitute new law.”); Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 689 (11th Cir.1986) (“The grant of the writ of certiorari ... is no authority to the contrary; any implications to be drawn therefrom may be discerned by application to the Supreme Court.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rogelio Vazquez Aguilar
See Robinson v. Crosby, 358 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir.2004) ("[T]he grant of certiorari alone is not enough to change the law of this circuit or to justify this Court in granting a stay of execution on the possibility that the Supreme Court may overturn circuit law.”); Ritter v. Thigpen, 828 F.2d 662, 665-66 (11th Cir.1987) (“A grant of certiorari does not constitute new law.”); Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 689 (11th Cir.1986) (‘'[A]ny implications to be drawn [from a grant of certiorari in another case] may be discerned by application to the Supreme Court.”) (citation omitted…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schwab v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections
All four times we have declined to do so because the grant of certiorari does not change circuit precedent, and it makes more sense to let the Court that is going to be deciding the issue determine whether there should be a stay in another case raising it.”), stay granted, 546 U.S. 1159 , 126 S.Ct. 1191 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1144 , opinion vacated sub nom., Rutherford v. McDonough, - U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2915 , 165 L.Ed.2d 914 , reinstated in part, 466 F.3d 970 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 465 , 166 L.Ed.2d 331 (2006); Robinson v. Crosby, 358 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir.) (declining to gr…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arthur D. Rutherford v. James McDonough
(2×)
See Ritter v. Thigpen, 828 F.2d 662 , 665–66 (11th Cir. 1987); Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 689 (11th Cir. 1986).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Arthur D. Rutherford v. James v. Crosby, Jr.
(3×)
See Robinson, 358 F.3d at 1284 (“[T]he grant of certiorari alone is not enough to change the law of this circuit or to justify this Court in granting a stay of execution on the possibility that the Supreme Court may overturn circuit law.”); Ritter v. Thigpen, 828 F.2d 662, 665-66 (11th Cir.1987) (“A grant of certiorari does not constitute new law.”); Mulligan v. Kemp, 818 F.2d 746, 747-48 (11th Cir.1987) (The grant of certiorari does not constitute a “decided case upon which to pass a new law claim.”); Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 689 (11th Cir.1986) (“[A]ny implications t…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Robinson v. Crosby
See Ritter v. Thigpen, 828 F.2d 662, 665-66 (11th Cir.1987); Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 688-89 (11th Cir.1986); Bowden v. Kemp, 114, F.2d 1494, 1494 (11th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
David Eugene Johnston v. Harry K. Singletary, Jr. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
The district court acknowledged that a claim regarding competency generally cannot be procedurally defaulted under this circuit’s precedent, but pointed to other Eleventh Circuit decisions in which we stated that “once the issue of competency to stand trial is raised and the state court takes the proper steps to resolve the issue, the defendant is [not] free to drop the issue or later pick it up as it suits his purposes.” Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 688 (11th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roy Allen Stewart v. Richard L. Dugger, as Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Florida
(2×)
Dugger v. Adams, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1106 , 99 L.Ed.2d 267 (1988); Funchess v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 1443, 1445 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1133 , 106 S.Ct. 1668 , 90 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986); Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 693-94 (11th Cir.1986) (Johnson, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1113 , 106 S.Ct. 1623 , 90 L.Ed.2d 173 (1986) 3 Since this line of questioning at voir dire is potentially beneficial to the defense, we can envision a situation where the prosecutor would object to questions by defense counsel as to whether a death-scrupled potential juror could neverth…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Evans v. Thigpen
Also, in Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 689 (11th Cir.1986), the Eleventh Circuit held that the allegation of fact concerning the exclusion of black jurors by peremptory challenges of the prosecutor did not rise to the systematic exclusion of black jurors required by Swain .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Edwards v. Thigpen
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.g., Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 689 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Hawkins, 781 F.2d 1483, 1487 (11th Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Funchess v. Wainwright
In fact, “[w]e have been unable to find any case in which this Court has stayed an execution pending appeal to this Court because of the Grigsby issue since that issue has been settled by our decisions.” Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 689 (11th Cir.1986) (quoting Jones, 786 F.2d at 1012 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Funchess v. Wainwright
In fact, "[w]e have been unable to find any case in which this Court has stayed an execution pending appeal to this Court because of the Grigsby issue since that issue has been settled by our decisions." Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 689 (11th Cir.1986) (quoting Jones, 786 F.2d at 1012 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lawrence Capers, Leonard Capers v. Harry K. Singletary, as Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Florida
See, e.g., Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 689 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (rejecting Swain claim where both the trial and sentencing juries included a black juror). 4 Any inference of intentional discrimination that might arise from the number of peremptory strikes exercised against black potential jurors is further rebutted by evident, racially neutral justifications for the majority of the state’s peremptory challenges.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daniel M. THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, as Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent-Appellee
v.
Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, as Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent-Appellee
86-3244_1.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Apr 14, 1986.
Douglas N. Duncan, Robert E. Alber, W. Palm Beach, Fla., Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative, Michael A. Mello, Steven Malone, David A. Reiser, Tallahassee, Fla., for petitioner-appellant., Theda R. James, Ass’t. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Legal Affairs, Tampa, Fla., for respondent-appellee.
Roney, Fay, Johnson.
Published
BY THE COURT:
This is an appeal from an order denying habeas corpus relief to Daniel Morris Thomas, whose execution is set for 7:00 A.M. tomorrow, April 15, 1986. The application for certificate of probable cause is DENIED, and a stay of execution pending appeal to this Court is DENIED.
This Court GRANTS a limited stay of execution until 12:00 noon tomorrow, April 15, 1986. Opinions will be filed by this Court tomorrow morning. The purpose of this stay is to permit application for stay of execution to the United States Supreme Court.
Judge JOHNSON would grant the certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution pending appeal to this Court.