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.
LENHARD et al., CLARK COUNTY DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS, Individually and as Next Friends of Bishop v. WOLFF, WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON SYSTEM, et al., 1979 — 444 U.S. 1301 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
LENHARD et al., CLARK COUNTY DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS, Individually and as Next Friends of Bishop v. WOLFF, WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON SYSTEM, et al.
444 U.S. 1301·Supreme Court of the United States·1979
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
LENHARD et al., CLARK COUNTY DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS, Individually and as Next Friends of Bishop v. WOLFF, WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON SYSTEM, et al.
Nos. A-172 and A-332.
Decided October 18, 1979
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Rehnquist,]
Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
Circuit Justice.
On October 1, 1979, this Court denied the application of Kirk Lenhard and George Franzen, acting as next friends of Jesse Bishop, for a stay of execution pending the filing and determination of a petition for certiorari, Lenhard v. Wolff, ante, p. 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 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.