Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Gilmore v. Utah, 1976 — 429 U.S. 989 · caselaw · US
General
Gilmore v. Utah
429 U.S. 989·Supreme Court of the United States·1976
The Chief (Jtjstice, Mr. Justice Rehnquist, and Mr. Justice Stevens would deny the stay.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
December 3, 1976
No. A-453.
Gilmore v. Utah.
[MAJORITY]
State of Utah is requested to file prior to 5 p.m., e.s.t., Tuesday, December 7, 1976, a response to application for stay of execution filed December 2, 1976, particularly with respect to the allegations of said application bearing upon the validity of Gary Mark Gilmore’s waiver of his right to appeal, and to file with said response, unless impossible or wholly impractical, a transcript of the hearing held on November 1, 1976, on the motion for a new trial, a transcript of the proceedings of November 10, 1976, before the Utah Supreme Court, a transcript of the proceedings before the Board of Pardons on November 30, 1976, and a transcript of the proceedings of December 1, 1976, before the sentencing judgment at which a date for execution of the sentence was set. The State’s response may be filed separately from and prior to the filing of the transcripts should the State care to do so. Application for stay of execution granted pending filing of said response and further action of the Court on the application for stay.
The Chief (Jtjstice, Mr. Justice Rehnquist, and Mr. Justice Stevens would deny the stay.