§Why CasetextPricing

Abdullah et al v. Bush et al

RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re

49 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 27,840 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

  2. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.

    528 U.S. 167 (2000)   Cited 7,153 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs who curtailed their recreational activities on a river due to reasonable concerns about the effect of pollutant discharges into that river had standing

  3. Felker v. Turpin

    518 U.S. 651 (1996)   Cited 3,112 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's "restrictions . . . on second habeas petitions are well within the compass of [habeas's] evolutionary process, and . . . do not amount to a 'suspension' of the writ"

  4. Allen v. Wright

    468 U.S. 737 (1984)   Cited 4,756 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, even when plaintiffs allege "one of the most serious injuries recognized in our legal system," it's not justiciable where "the chain of causation between the challenged Government conduct and the asserted injury are far too weak for the chain as a whole to sustain respondents' standing"

  5. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

    549 U.S. 497 (2007)   Cited 1,160 times   97 Legal Analyses
    Holding that denials of petitions for rulemaking are judicially reviewable

  6. Pennsylvania v. Mimms

    434 U.S. 106 (1977)   Cited 3,370 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that officer's practice of ordering occupants out of the car during all traffic stops was not a constitutional violation

  7. Boumediene v. Bush

    553 U.S. 723 (2008)   Cited 967 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that enemy combatants are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus

  8. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.

    514 U.S. 211 (1995)   Cited 885 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding legislated invalidation of final judgments to be categorically unconstitutional

  9. Jones v. Cunningham

    371 U.S. 236 (1963)   Cited 1,828 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prisoner who had been placed on parole was still "in custody" under his unexpired sentence

  10. Hensley v. Municipal Court

    411 U.S. 345 (1973)   Cited 962 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant released on recognizance was in custody for purposes of habeas

  11. Section 2241 - Power to grant writ

    28 U.S.C. § 2241   Cited 80,454 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to determine whether detention is "in violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States"

  12. Section 2243 - Issuance of writ; return; hearing; decision

    28 U.S.C. § 2243   Cited 9,850 times   5 Legal Analyses
    In 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and 2244, the word "entertain" means a federal district court's conclusion, after examination of the habeas corpus application with such accompanying papers as the court deems necessary, that a hearing on the merits, legal or factual, is proper.