§Why CasetextPricing

BRIGGS v. BROWN

Petitioners, Ron Briggs and John Van de Kamp, Reply to Preliminary Opposition

55 Cited authorities

  1. Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.

    473 U.S. 432 (1985)   Cited 9,684 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mental disability is not a quasi-suspect class

  2. Felker v. Turpin

    518 U.S. 651 (1996)   Cited 3,104 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"

  3. Hill v. McDonough

    547 U.S. 573 (2006)   Cited 963 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inmate seeking a stay of execution “must satisfy all of the requirements for a stay, including a showing of a significant possibility of success on the merits”

  4. In re Robbins

    18 Cal.4th 770 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 2,952 times
    Holding that a habeas claim "that is substantially delayed" will not be considered unless "the petitioner can demonstrate 'good cause' for the delay."

  5. Landis v. North American Co.

    299 U.S. 248 (1936)   Cited 8,249 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"

  6. In re Clark

    5 Cal.4th 750 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 3,135 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "absent justification for the failure to present all known claims in a single, timely petition for writ of habeas corpus, successive and/or untimely petitions will be summarily denied"

  7. In re Reno

    55 Cal.4th 428 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 381 times
    Approving of abbreviated state court habeas exhaustion petition procedure and finding it did not conflict with United States Supreme Court limitation of federal habeas review to the record before the state court which adjudicated the claim on the merits in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170

  8. Lewis v. Superior Court

    19 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 435 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellate courts not required to afford parties opportunity for oral argument before issuing a peremptory writ in first instance

  9. In re Carpenter

    9 Cal.4th 634 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 366 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that California Constitution "grants original subject matter jurisdiction over habeas corpus proceedings to the superior court, the Court of Appeal, and [the Supreme Court]"

  10. People v. Romero

    8 Cal.4th 728 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 367 times
    Explaining that California's constitution grants original jurisdiction in habeas corpus to the California Supreme Court

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 485,542 times   688 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Section 10

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 10   Cited 403 times
    Granting original jurisdiction to courts in habeas matters

  13. Section 11

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 11   Cited 304 times
    Authorizing the taking of such evidence

  14. Section 8

    Cal. Const. art. II § 8   Cited 163 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Outlining initiative process for amending the state constitution

  15. Section 11

    Cal. Const. art. I § 11   Cited 148 times
    Limiting state government's power to suspend writ of habeas corpus

  16. Rule 8.486 - Petitions

    Cal. R. 8.486   Cited 72 times

    (a)Contents of petition (1) If the petition could have been filed first in a lower court, it must explain why the reviewing court should issue the writ as an original matter. (2) If the petition names as respondent a judge, court, board, or other officer acting in a public capacity, it must disclose the name of any real party in interest. (3) If the petition seeks review of trial court proceedings that are also the subject of a pending appeal, the notice "Related Appeal Pending" must appear on the

  17. Rule 8.385 - Proceedings after the petition is filed

    Cal. R. 8.385   Cited 55 times

    (a) Production of record Before ruling on the petition, the court may order the custodian of any relevant record to produce the record or a certified copy to be filed with the court. Sealed and confidential records are governed by rules 8.45-8.47. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2014.) (b) Informal response (1) Before ruling on the petition, the court may request an informal written response from the respondent, the real party in interest, or an interested person. The court must send a copy