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.
Russell BUCKLEW, petitioner, v. Anne L. PRECYTHE, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, et al., 2018 — 138 S. Ct. 1706 · caselaw · US
General
Russell BUCKLEW, petitioner, v. Anne L. PRECYTHE, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, et al.
138 S. Ct. 1706200 L. Ed. 2d 948·Supreme Court of the United States·2018
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
Russell BUCKLEW, petitioner,
v.
Anne L. PRECYTHE, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, et al.
No. 17-8151.
Supreme Court of the United States
April 30, 2018.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit are granted. In addition to the questions presented in the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following Question: Whether petitioner met his burden under Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2726, 192 L.Ed.2d 761 (2015), to prove what procedures would be used to administer his proposed alternative method of execution, the severity and duration of pain likely to be produced, and how they compare to the State's method of execution.