INDIANA STATE POLICE PENSION TRUST ET AL.
v.
CHRYSLER LLC 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 State appeals an order suppressing Jeffrey Thompson's confession, arguing the trial court erred in finding Thompson's invocation of his right to counsel was effective after he was arrested for DUI and subsequently confessed to a robbery.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order suppressing Thompson's confession, finding the order was supported by competent, substantial evidence and proper legal conclusions.
Police stopped Thompson based on a robbery description, arrested him for DUI, and he invoked his right to counsel multiple times. Approximately twelve…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stay Pending Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The applications for stay presented to Justice Ginsburg and by her referred to the Court are denied. The temporary stay entered by Justice Ginsburg on June 8, 2009, is vacated.
A denial of a stay is not a decision on the merits of the underlying legal issues. In determining whether to grant a stay, we consider instead whether the applicant has demonstrated “(1) a reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari or to note probable jurisdiction; (2) a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will conclude that the decision below was erroneous; and (3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.” Conkright v. Frommert, post, at 1402 (Ginsburg, J., in chambers) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
In addition, “in a close case it may be appropriate to balance the equities,” to assess the relative harms to the parties, “as well as the interests of the public at large.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, ante, at 433 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
It is instead an exercise of judicial discretion, and the “party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Ante, at 433-434. The applicants have not carried that burden.
“[T]he propriety of [a stay] is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case,” and the “traditional stay factors contemplate individualized judgments in each case.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). Our assessment of the stay factors here is based on the record and proceedings in these cases alone.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2011)…unsingwear, 340 U. S., at 39-40, and n. 2, we should simply vacate the portion of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion Camreta sought to challenge and remand with instructions to dismiss, see, e. g., Indiana [*716] State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC, 556 U. S. 960 (2009) (per curiam).…
-
Bennett v. Royal, 899 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2018)…ave asked for limited stay relief on another basis, such as meeting the traditional requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction-likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, etc. Cf. Ind. State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC , 556 U.S. 960, 960, 129 S.Ct. 2275, 173 L.Ed.2d 1285 (2009) (endorsing the application of these factors in deciding whether to stay a bankruptcy court order authorizing the sale of assets); Poplar Grove Planting & Refining Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc. , 600 F…1 / 2