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.
Evans v. Bennett, Correctional Commissioner, et al., 1979 — 440 U.S. 987 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Evans v. Bennett, Correctional Commissioner, et al.
440 U.S. 987·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
April 13, 1979
No. A-868.
Evans v. Bennett, Correctional Commissioner, et al.
[MAJORITY]
Application for stay of execution, presented to Mr. Justice Rehnquist, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
[CONCURRENCE — Mr. Justice Brennan,]
Mr. Justice Brennan,
concurring.
It should be noted that the applicant has filed a letter with the Clerk of the Court stating in part:
“1. On April 11, 1979, John Louis Evans, applicant’s son, signed and verified a petition for writ of habeas corpus and stay of execution for filing with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
“2. Also, on April 11, 1979, that verified petition was mailed for filing to the clerk of that court.
“3. As of April 11, 1979, the Alabama Supreme Court had not yet set a new execution date for John Louis Evans.”
The above-stated facts may make it unnecessary for the Court to rule on her application for a stay at its conference on Friday, April 13. Should the District Court grant her son’s application for a stay of execution, the application for a stay before this Court would become moot. Applicant is aware that the temporary stay granted in this action expires at 5 p. m. on April 13, 1979. No harm will come to applicant by the expiration of the temporary stay since the Alabama Supreme Court has not yet set a new execution date for her son and, until such date is set, her son cannot be executed.
In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that there is now no need to grant the application.