Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 48 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Gomez v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gomez v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California Anchor | green | “a court may consider the last-minute nature of an application to stay execution in deciding whether to grant equitable relief.” | 18 |
| 2 | Nelson v. Campbell | green | “there is a strong equitable presumption against the grant of a stay where a claim could have been brought at such a time as to allow consideration of the merits without requiring entry of a stay.” | 15 |
| 3 | Gomez v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California | green | “last-minute nature of an application” | 8 |
| 4 | Tompkin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. | green | “a district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or when it improperly applies the law or uses an erroneous legal standard.” | 4 |
| 5 | In Re Sapp | green | “a challenge to a method of execution, whatever denominated (rule 60(b), 1983, or otherwise) is to be treated as a habeas petition.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.