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.
KRAUSE et al. v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, et al., 1977 — 434 U.S. 1335 · caselaw · US
General
KRAUSE et al. v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, et al.
434 U.S. 1335·Supreme Court of the United States·1977
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
KRAUSE et al. v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, et al.
No. A-260.
Decided September 16, 1977
See: 570 F. 2d 563.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Stewart, Circuit Justice.]
Mr. Justice Stewart, Circuit Justice.
This is an application for an injunction and/or a stay of mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, pending the filing of a petition for certiorari in this Court. Its purpose is to secure from me, as Sixth Circuit Justice, an order stopping for the time being the construction of a gymnasium on a site at Kent State University in Ohio. The claim is that only such an order will prevent the obliteration of evidence necessary to a fair retrial of a lawsuit in which the applicants are plaintiffs.
Similar applications are now pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Because of the intimate familiarity with the factual environment of this litigation acquired by those courts during the original trial and appeal, they are both now in a position far superior to that of an individual Justice of this Court fairly to assess the merits of the applicants' position.
Accordingly, the application is hereby denied, without prejudice to the right of the applicants to continue to pursue similar relief in the District Court and/or the Court of Appeals, or to petition this Court for certiorari.
It is so ordered.