COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIANA ET AL.
v.
WHITCOMB, GOVERNOR OF INDIANA, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Communist Party of Indiana sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court to reverse a district court order upholding an Indiana ballot access oath requirement, but the Court denied the application because the applicants failed to demonstrate an indisputably clear right to the extraordinary remedy of a mandatory injunction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.
Applicants have filed a motion denominated an “Application for Stay of Order of United States District Court of the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division,” which order was entered following a hearing on their complaint alleging that the oath required by Indiana law in order for a party to be placed on the ballot was unconstitutional. An examination of the application, however, shows that applicants do not seek a stay of that order, but instead a partial summary reversal of the District Court order entered on October 4, 1972. While a Circuit Justice of this Court apparently has authority under Supreme Court Rule 51 to grant such relief in the form of a mandatory injunction, usage and practice suggest that this extraordinary remedy be employed only in the most unusual case. In order that it be available, the applicants’ right to relief must be indisputably clear. Applicants do not present such a case, and their application is therefore denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leonard J. Klay, M.D. v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2004)…123 L.Ed.2d 642 (1993) (Rehnquist, C.J., in chambers), quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). In such situations, the Court has also required that the right to have the act stayed be "indisputably clear.” Id., quoting Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, 409 U.S. 1235, 93 S.Ct. 16, 34 L.Ed.2d 64 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). We have found no other cases involving injunctions under the All Writs Act where this requirement, concerning the "indisputably clear” nature of the right, is applied (and we hasten…
-
Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 479 U.S. 1312 (U.S. 1986)…, 1326 (1976) (Marshall, J., in chambers) (quoting Williams v. Rhodes, 89 S. Ct. 1, 2, 21 L. Ed. 2d 69, 70 (1968) (Stewart, J., in chambers)), and only where the legal rights at issue are “indisputably clear,” Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, 409 U. S. 1235 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). Moreover, the applicant must demonstrate that the injunctive [*1314] relief is “necessary or appropriate in aid of [the Court’s] jurisdiction].” 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a). I will not consider counsel to have asked…
-
Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301 (U.S. 2001)…(quoting Fishman v. Schaffer, 429 U. S. 1325, 1326 (1976) (Marshall, J., in chambers)). Such an injunction is appropriate only if “the legal rights at issue are ‘indisputably clear.’” 479 U. S., at 1313 (quoting Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 409 U. S. 1235 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers)). Whatever else may be said about the issues and equities in this case, the rights of the applicants are not “indisputably clear.” The pros and cons of the applicants’ claim on the merits are fully set forth in t…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence