KEMP, SUPERINTENDENT, COLUMBIA DIAGNOSTIC AND CLASSIFICATION CENTER
v.
SMITH

U.S. | 1983-08-24
No. A-133
463 U.S. 1321 Supreme Court of the United States (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The Circuit Justice denied the application to vacate the stay of execution granted by the Court of Appeals.


Facts & Procedural History

Respondent Smith, facing execution, had his stay of execution granted by the Court of Appeals, reversing the District Court. This was the fourth time …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
Justice Powell, Circuit Justice.

Justice Powell, Circuit Justice.

Respondent Smith, a convicted murderer, is scheduled to be executed by the State of Georgia at 8 a. m. tomorrow, Thursday, August 25.

At about 4:25 p. m. on August 23, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — reversing the District Court — granted a stay of execution. Its brief opinion stated that substantial issues were raised in this habeas corpus proceeding that justified review of their merits. Judge Hill dissented. At about 10 a. m. today, the Attorney General of Georgia filed an application with me as Circuit Justice requesting that I dissolve and vacate this stay. A response to this application was received this afternoon in my chambers at about 3 o’clock.

This is the fourth time that this capital case has required action by this Court: once on direct appeal, once on state habeas corpus, once on federal habeas corpus, and now in Smith’s second federal habeas proceeding. Apart from rehearings, this case has been reviewed 16 times by state and federal courts since Smith’s conviction in 1975. In these circumstances, and for the reasons stated by Judge Hill in his dissenting opinion below, it is not clear to me that the Court of Appeals is correct in thinking that substantial issues may remain for further consideration.

But in the present posture of the case, the question before me as Circuit Justice is whether the Court of Appeals has abused its discretion in granting a temporary stay pending a hearing on the merits. I am not able so to conclude. It is apparent from the papers presented that the Court of Appeals heard arguments at some length yesterday afternoon. Moreover, and quite properly, that court has provided for an expeditious hearing on the merits.

Accordingly, the application to vacate the stay ordered by the Court of Appeals is denied.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Wainwright v. Booker, 473 U.S. 935 (U.S. 1985)
    …ceived the petition for certiorari. In so doing, the Court ignores repeated reminders by Justices of the Court that our power to vacate a stay entered by a lower court should be reserved only for exceptional circumstances, see, e. g., Kemp v. Smith, 463 U. S. 1321 (1983) (Powell, J., in chambers); O’Connor v. Board of Education, 449 U. S. 1301 (1980) (Stevens, J., in chambers), and that the lower court’s decision is “deserving of great weight,” Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. British American Commodity Op…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw