green
Positive treatment
Issue: Eighth Amendment barMS ↗
Issue: Brady violationMT ↗
Issue: analogous claimAZ ↗
Issue: Eighth Amendment challengeFL ↗
Under Fire
15.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…executing him after such a lengthy stay on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1998 ·
…it is arguable that neither ground retains any force for prisoners who have spent some 17 years under a sentence of death.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Under fire — who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this
case.
This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Concurrence
Dunn v. Madison
(2017)
“Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 , 1046, 115 S.Ct. 1421 , 131 L.Ed.2d 304 (1995) (memorandum respecting denial of certiorari).”
Concurrence
Knight v. Florida
(1999)
“Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045 (1995) (memorandum respecting denial of certiorari).”
Dissent
Elledge v. Florida
(1998)
“For these reasons, and for the additional reasons set forth by Justice Stevens in Lackey, supra, I would grant the petition for certiorari.”
Dissent
Elledge v. Florida
(1998)
“Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045 (1995) (opinion respecting denial of certiorari).”
Dissent
Valle v. Florida
(2011)
“See Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045 (1995) (Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari); Knight v. Florida, 528 U. S. 990, 993 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).”
Dissent
Ayers v. Belmontes
(2006)
“Cf. Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045 (1995) (Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari).”
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Roderick Michael Orme v. State of Florida
There, Justice Breyer, relying in part on Justice Stevens’ memorandum respecting the denial of certiorari in Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Mahoney
Id. at 1370 (B. 8 See Johnson v. Bredesen, 130 S. Ct. 541, 542 (2009) (Stevens, J., dis- senting from denial of cert.) (“[M]y strongly held view [is] that state- caused delay in state-sponsored killings can be unacceptably cruel.”); Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990, 993 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of cert) (“Where a delay, measured in decades, reflects the State’s own failure to comply with the Constitution’s demands, the claim that time has rendered the execution inhuman is a particularly strong one.”); Elledge v. Florida, 525 U.S. 944 (1998) (Breyer, J., dissenting …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Austin
(2×)
Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. at 1045, 115 S.Ct. at 1421 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Darick Leonard Gerlaugh v. Terry L. Stewart, Director, Arizona Dept. Of Corrections
(2×)
Gerlaugh has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right for (1) reasonable jurists differ concerning whether execution after extended tenure on death row violates the Eighth Amendment, see Lackey, 514 U.S. at 1045, 115 S.Ct. 1421 (Stevens, J., re denial of certiorari); Elledge v. Florida, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 366 , 142 L.Ed.2d 303 (Breyer, J., dissenting from the denial of certiorari), and (2) the Supreme Court has also not decided whether a Lackey claim becomes ripe before an execution is imminent.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James W. Chambers v. Michael Bowersox, Warden
That section of the English Bill of Rights is “undoubtedly the precursor of our own Eighth Amendment,” Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. at 1047, 115 S.Ct. 1421 (opinion of Stevens, J.), though delay in the execution of sentences was hardly a problem in 1689.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati
Brown v. Texas, 522 U. S. 940, 942 (1997) (opinion of Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari); Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045, 1047 (1995); Barber v. Tennessee, 513 U. S. 1184 (1995) (opinion of Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati
Brown v. Texas, 522 U. S. 940, 942 (1997) (opinion of Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari); Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045, 1047 (1995); Barber v. Tennessee, 513 U. S. 1184 (1995) (opinion of Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James W. Chambers v. Michael Bowersox
That section of the English Bill of Rights is "undoubtedly the precursor of our own Eighth Amendment," Lackey v. Texas, 7 Section 17(1) of the Jamaican Constitution provides that "[n]o person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment." -16- 514 U.S. at 1047 (1995) (opinion of Stevens, J.), though delay in the execution of sentences was hardly a problem in 1689.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Barnett
On denial of certiorari, Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Breyer, filed a memorandum expressing the view that Lackey’s claim, though novel, was “not without foundation.” ( 514 U.S. 1045 .) Justice Stevens, however, indicated there were questions concerning what portion of the 17-year delay should be considered in the analysis and whether some of the delay should be attributable to Lackey’s abuse of the system. (514 U.S. at p. 1047 [115 S.Ct. at p. 1422].) In closing, Justice Stevens remarked that the denial of certiorari was not a ruling on the merits and characterized Lackey’s cla…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Barnett
On denial of certiorari, Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Breyer, filed a memorandum expressing the view that Lackey's claim, though novel, was "not without foundation." ( 514 U.S. 1045 , 115 S.Ct. 1421 , 131 L.Ed.2d 304 .) Justice Stevens, however, indicated there were questions concerning what portion of the 17-year delay should be considered in the analysis and whether some of the *212 delay should be attributable to Lackey's abuse of the system. (514 U.S. at p. 1047, 115 S.Ct. at p. 1422.) In closing, Justice Stevens remarked that the denial of certiorari was not a ruling on the merits a…
discussed
Cited "see"
Speer v. Shinn
(Doc. 13 at 284.) This claim is meritless. - 146 - Case 2:16-cv-04193-GMS Document 35 Filed 03/14/23 Page 147 of 151 1 “The Supreme Court has never held that execution after a long tenure on death row 2 is cruel and unusual punishment.” Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2006); see 3 Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., discussing denial 4 of certiorari and noting the claim has not been addressed); Thompson v. McNeil, 556 U.S. 5 1114 (2009) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari; Thomas, 6 J., concurring, discuss…
discussed
Cited "see"
Garcia v. Shinn
(Doc. 22 at 249.) This claim is meritless. 7 “The Supreme Court has never held that execution after a long tenure on death row 8 is cruel and unusual punishment.” Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2006); see 9 Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., discussing denial 10 of certiorari and noting the claim has not been addressed); Thompson v. McNeil, 556 U.S. 11 1114 (2009) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari; Thomas, 12 J., concurring, discussing Lackey issue); see also Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 (1999) 13 (…
cited
Cited "see"
Buntion v. Lumpkin
See Lackey, 514 U.S. at 1045–46 (memorandum of Stevens, J., respecting the denial of certiorari) (casting the claim in these terms).
discussed
Cited "see"
Garza v. Shinn
(Doc. 27 at 370.) This claim is also without merit. 18 “The Supreme Court has never held that execution after a long tenure on death row 19 is cruel and unusual punishment.” Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2006); see 20 Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., discussing denial 21 of certiorari and noting the claim has not been addressed); Thompson v. McNeil, 556 U.S. 22 1114 (2009) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari; Thomas, 23 J., concurring, discussing Lackey issue); see also Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990…
discussed
Cited "see"
Hedlund v. Shinn
See 28 Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., discussing denial of certiorari and noting the claim has not been addressed). 1 of a conditional writ in the first habeas proceeding. 2 Circuit courts have allowed prisoner to file second petitions “relating to denial of 3 parole, revocation of a suspended sentence, and the like because such claims were not ripe 4 for adjudication at the conclusion of the prisoner’s first federal habeas proceeding.” 5 Buenrostro, 638 F.3d at 725 ; see also Hill v. Alaska, 297 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2002) 6 (declining to find …
discussed
Cited "see"
Boggs v. Shinn
See Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., discussing denial of certiorari and noting the claim has not been addressed); 25 Thompson v. McNeil, 556 U.S. 1114 (2009) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari; Thomas, J., concurring, discussing Lackey issue).
discussed
Cited "see"
(DP) Catlin v. Davis
Allen cannot credibly claim that there is any clearly 25 established law, as determined by the Supreme Court, which would support this . . . claim”); accord 26 Lackey, 514 U.S. 1045 ; Knight, 528 U.S. 990 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Roybal v. Davis
See Smith v. Mahoney, 611 F.3d 978, 998-99 (9th Cir.2010) (“[A] state court considering [Petitioner’s] Eighth Amendment claim at the time his conviction became final would not have felt compelled by existing precedent to conclude that the rule sought was required by the Constitution.”) In support of his argument, Petitioner relies upon an 1890 United States Supreme Court decision stating that “when a prisoner sentenced by a court to death is confined in the penitentiary awaiting the execution of the sentence, one of the most horrible feelings to which he can be subjected during that ti…
cited
Cited "see"
Gardner v. State
See Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 , 115 S.Ct. 1421 , 131 L.Ed.2d 304 (1995) (Stevens, J., statement respecting denial of certiorari).
discussed
Cited "see"
Foster v. Florida
(2×)
See Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045 (Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari); Elledge v. Florida, 525 U. S. 944 (1998) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Knight v. Florida, 528 U. S. 990, 993-999 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
examined
Cited "see"
People v. Simms
(4×)
See Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 , 115 S.Ct. 1421 , 131 L.Ed.2d 304 (1995) (Stevens, J., mem. op. on denial of cert. ); Elledge v. Florida, 525 U.S. 944 , 119 S.Ct. 366 , 142 L.Ed.2d 303 (1998) (Breyer, J., dissenting).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Emerson
(2×)
See Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 , 115 S.Ct. 1421 , 131 L.Ed.2d 304 (1995) (mem.) (Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari ); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 312 , 92 S.Ct. 2726, 2763 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346, 391 (1972) (White, J., concurring) (discussing the constitutionality of imposing the death penalty for rape).
cited
Cited "see"
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 557, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1135 Jose Jesus Ceja, an Individual v. Terry Stewart, Director of Arizona Department of Corrections Donald Wawrzaszek, Superintendent of Arizona State Prison
See Lackey, 514 U.S. at 1045-46 , 115 S.Ct. at 1421-22 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Maria Alfaro v. Deborah Johnson
Id. at 1372 , 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 195 , 355 P.3d 384 ; see also Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 , 115 S.Ct. 1421 , 131 L.Ed.2d 304 (1995) (Stevens, J., mem. op. respecting denial of cert.).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Jones v. Chappell
See, e.g., Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 , 115 S.Ct. 1421 , 131 L.Ed.2d 304 (1995) (17 years of delay); Smith v. Mahoney, 611 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2010) (25 years of delay).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brice v. State
Sometimes such an order reflects nothing more than a conclusion that a particular case may not constitute an appropriate forum in which to decide a significant issue.”) (citation omitted); see also Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 , 115 S.Ct. 1421 , 131 L.Ed.2d 304 (1995) (Mem.) (Stevens, J.) (“Often a denial of certio-rari on a novel issue will permit the state and federal courts to 'serve as laboratories in which the issue receives further study before it is addressed by this Court.’ ”) (quoting McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961 , 103 S.Ct. 2438 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983)). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ring v. Arizona
(2×)
They argue that the delays that increasingly accompany sentences of death make those sentences unconstitutional because of "the suffering inherent in a prolonged wait for execution." Knight v. Florida, 528 U. S. 990 , 994 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (arguing that the Court should consider the question); see, e. g., Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045 (1995) (Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari); Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment 2000, pp. 12, 14 (rev. 2002) (average delay is 12 years, with 52 people waiting more than 20 years and some more than…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Douglas Edward Gretzler v. Terry L. Stewart, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections
See also Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 , 115 S.Ct. 1421 , 131 L.Ed.2d 304 (1995) (Stevens, J. dissenting from denial of certio-rari) where petitioner had been on death row 17 years.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Morrow
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 94-1444.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 27, 1995.
Consideration, Took.
Published
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.