Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

motion
motion

Related Cases

Sier v. Jacobs Persinger & Parker, 276 A.D.2d 401, 714 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2000 N.Y. Slip Op. 09017
View Case »
Zeidwig v. Ward, 548 So.2d 209, 58 USLW 2161, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 392
View Case »
U.S. v. Safavian, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 3378479
View Case »
Simon v. KPMG LLP, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 1541048, 97 A.F.T.R.2d 2006-2806
View Case »
Parnell v. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, 110 F.3d 1077, 65 USLW 2682
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors, 469 U.S. 877, 105 S.Ct. 238, 83 L.Ed.2d 178

Facts

On September 27, 1984, Justice Rehnquist entered a stay in the case. Subsequently, a motion was filed to vacate this stay, prompting the court to review the request. The context of the stay and the reasons for the motion to vacate were central to the court's decision.

On September 27, 1984, Justice Rehnquist entered a stay in the case.

Issue

Whether the court should vacate the stay entered by Justice Rehnquist on September 27, 1984.

Whether the court should vacate the stay entered by Justice Rehnquist on September 27, 1984.

Rule

The court applies the standard for evaluating motions to vacate stays, considering the implications of maintaining or lifting the stay.

The court applies the standard for evaluating motions to vacate stays, considering the implications of maintaining or lifting the stay.

Analysis

In reviewing the motion to vacate the stay, the court assessed the reasons presented for the request and the potential impact on the ongoing proceedings. The court determined that the stay should remain in place, indicating that the factors favoring the continuation of the stay outweighed those favoring its vacatur.

In reviewing the motion to vacate the stay, the court assessed the reasons presented for the request and the potential impact on the ongoing proceedings.

Conclusion

The motion to vacate the stay is denied, and the stay remains in effect.

The motion to vacate the stay is denied, and the stay remains in effect.

Who won?

The court ruled in favor of maintaining the stay, thus the prevailing party is the party opposing the motion to vacate.

You must be