Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Woodard v. Hutchins

464 U.S. 377

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1984-01-13
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • discussing abusiveness question without regard to whether determination was debatable among jurists of reason and granting motion to vacate
  • Powell, J., joined by Burger, C. J., BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., concurring in order vacating stay
  • Powell, J., joined by Burger, C.J., Blackmun, Rehnquist and O'Connor, J.J. concurring in the per curiam order to vacate the stay
  • Powell, J., joined by Burger, C. J., and Blackmun, Rehnquist, and O’Connor, JJ., concurring
  • no explanation as to why an issue was not raised in the first petition constituted an abuse of the writ
  • abuse of writ in belated raising of new theory of claim on basis of recent scientific knowledge
  • "A pattern seems to be developing in capital cases of multiple review in which claims that could have been presented years ago are brought forward—often in a piecemeal fashion—only after the execution date is set or becomes imminent."
  • affirmative evidence of deliberateness unnecessary when petitioner represented by counsel

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Woodard v. Hutchins. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
109 opinions
Per Curiam.

This matter comes to the Court on the application of the State of North Carolina to vacate an order of a single Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, granting, at 12:05 a. m. today, respondent’s application for a stay of execution. Circuit Judge Phillips had jurisdiction to consider respondent’s application pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1651; accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to consider the State’s application. A transcript of Judge Phillips’ opinion is before the Court. The application to vacate the stay of execution entered today, January 13, 1984, by Circuit Judge Phillips, was presented to the Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court.

The application to vacate said stay is granted.

It is so ordered.