McCarthy v. Briscoe

Supreme Court

McCarthy v. Briscoe

429 U.S. 1316, 97 S. Ct. 9, 50 L. Ed. 2d 47, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 3427

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedSeptember 14, 1976

DocketNo. A-201

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 429 U.S. 1316 (McCarthy v. Briscoe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1316, 97 S. Ct. 9, 50 L. Ed. 2d 47, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 3427 (1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Powell, Circuit Justice.

This application, for a partial stay of an order and judgment of a three-judge District Court for the Western District of Texas, reaches me during the summer recess of the Court. Following a practice utilized by other Justices and by myself on previous occasions, see, e. g., Graves v. Barnes, 405 U. S. 1201 (1972) (Powell, J., in chambers), I have consulted informally with each of my Brethren who was available.

* Although no other Justice has participated in the drafting of this order, I am authorized to say that each of those consulted would vote to deny the application for the reason stated below.

In denying injunctive relief to applicants, the three-judge District Court based its action not upon resolution of the merits of the constitutional claim presented (which it resolved in favor of applicants), but upon the equitable doctrine of laches. I conclude, therefore, that direct appeal to this Court does not lie under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, MTM, Inc. v. Baxley, 420 U. S. 799, 804 (1975), and that the Court is without jurisdiction to grant the relief now requested. Accordingly, the application for a stay is denied, but without prejudice to the right of applicants to seek relief in the Court of Appeals.

A11 Members of the Court, save two who were not available, have been consulted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Powell, Circuit Justice.

This application, for a partial stay of an order and judgment of a three-judge District Court for the Western District of Texas, reaches me during the summer recess of the Court. Following a practice utilized by other Justices and by myself on previous occasions, see, e. g., Graves v. Barnes, 405 U. S. 1201 (1972) (Powell, J., in chambers), I have consulted informally with each of my Brethren who was available.

* Although no other Justice has participated in the drafting of this order, I am authorized to say that each of those consulted would vote to deny the application for the reason stated below.

In denying injunctive relief to applicants, the three-judge District Court based its action not upon resolution of the merits of the constitutional claim presented (which it resolved in favor of applicants), but upon the equitable doctrine of laches. I conclude, therefore, that direct appeal to this Court does not lie under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, MTM, Inc. v. Baxley, 420 U. S. 799, 804 (1975), and that the Court is without jurisdiction to grant the relief now requested. Accordingly, the application for a stay is denied, but without prejudice to the right of applicants to seek relief in the Court of Appeals.

A11 Members of the Court, save two who were not available, have been consulted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 U.S. 1316, 97 S. Ct. 9, 50 L. Ed. 2d 47, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 3427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarthy-v-briscoe-scotus-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack