Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Law School Case Brief

Planned Parenthood v. Casey - 510 U.S. 1309, 114 S. Ct. 909, 127 L. Ed. 2d 352, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 1325

Rule:

The conditions that must be satisfied before a Circuit Justice may grant an application for a stay of mandate are: a likelihood of irreparable injury that, assuming the correctness of the applicants' position, would result were a stay not issued; a reasonable probability that the Court will grant certiorari; and a fair prospect that the applicant will ultimately prevail on the merits. The burden is on the applicant to rebut the presumption that the decisions below--both on the merits and on the proper interim disposition of the case--are correct.

Facts:

The applicants sought to reopen the record in a constitutional challenge to Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act. On remand from the United States Supreme Court and the court of appeals, the district court allowed applicants to reopen the record in their constitutional challenge to Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act (Act), 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 3203-3220 (1990), and continued its order enjoining the Commonwealth from enforcing various provisions of the Act. After the court of appeals held that the district court's order was inconsistent with law set forth by the Supreme Court and the court of appeals.

Issue:

Do the applicants comply with all the requisites to grant its application for a stay of mandate of the court of appeals?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The United States Supreme Court rejected the applicants' request for a stay of the mandate of the court of appeals. The Court analyzed three factors to determine whether such application should be granted: likelihood of irreparable injury if the stay were not issued, reasonable probability that the Court would grant certiorari, and a fair prospect that the applicants would ultimately prevail on the merits. The Court found that, if applicants' allegations were proven, the first factor would support a stay, but that the other two factors pointed against such a ruling. The Court ruled that the court of appeals' opinion was not such an arguable departure from the Court's mandate as to warrant discretionary review or an award of the relief the applicants sought.

Access the full text case Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class