Skip to content


Lenhard Vs. Wolff - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number444 U.S. 1301
AppellantLenhard
RespondentWolff
Excerpt:
.....october 22, 1979. lenhard and franzen have now submitted to me, as circuit justice, a petition requesting rehearing of this court's order of october 1, and an application for stay of execution pending determination of the petition for rehearing. resolving in applicants' favor all questions pertaining to procedures and rules of the court, i am satisfied that the moving papers would not persuade the requisite number of justices to grant applicants' proposed petition for certiorari, to page 444 u.s. 1301 , 1302 grant the petition for rehearing of this court's previous denial of a stay pending the filing of a petition for certiorari, or to grant a stay pending conference consideration of the petition for rehearing. see this court's rule 58. as a consequence whether the.....
Judgment:
LENHARD v. WOLFF - 444 U.S. 1301 (1979)
U.S. Supreme Court LENHARD v. WOLFF , 444 U.S. 1301 (1979)

444 U.S. 1301

Kirk B. LENHARD and George E. Franzen, Clark County Deputy Public Defenders, individually and as next friends acting on behalf of Jesse Walter Bishop, applicants,
v.
Charles WOLFF, Warden, Nevada State Prison System, et al
No. A-172
No.A-332

Supreme Court of the United States

October 18, 1979

Mr. Justice REHNQUIST.

On Lenhard v. Wolff, 444 U.S. 807 . Respondents have subsequently rescheduled Bishop's execution for Monday, October 22, 1979. Lenhard and Franzen have now submitted to me, as Circuit Justice, a petition requesting rehearing of this Court's order of October 1, and an application for stay of execution pending determination of the petition for rehearing.

Resolving in applicants' favor all questions pertaining to procedures and rules of the Court, I am satisfied that the moving papers would not persuade the requisite number of Justices to grant applicants' proposed petition for certiorari, to

Page 444 U.S. 1301 , 1302

grant the petition for rehearing of this Court's previous denial of a stay pending the filing of a petition for certiorari, or to grant a stay pending Conference consideration of the petition for rehearing. See this Court's Rule 58. As a consequence whether the submission presented to me as Circuit Justice on October 16, 1979, is treated as a request for a rehearing of our previous denial of a stay of execution, or as a new request for a stay of execution, it is in all respects

Denied.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //