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.
GREGG v. GEORGIA, 1976 — 429 U.S. 1301 · caselaw · US
General
GREGG v. GEORGIA
429 U.S. 1301·Supreme Court of the United States·1976
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
GREGG v. GEORGIA
No. A-31 (74-6257).
Decided July 22, 1976
Together with Nos. A-31 (75-5706), Proffitt v. Florida, and A-31 (75-5394), Jurek v. Texas.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Powell, Circuit Justice.]
Mr. Justice Powell, Circuit Justice.
The petitioners in these cases have filed with the Court a consolidated petition for rehearing, and also have presented to me as Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit an application for a stay of the mandate heretofore scheduled to issue on July 27, the stay to be effective pending the disposition of the consolidated petition for rehearing. Under controlling statutes, such petition cannot be acted upon except by the full Court in regular or special session. If the executions in these cases were carried out before the petition for rehearing could be acted on by the Court, the harm to petitioners obviously would be irreparable. In addition, the cases would then be moot. Nor is there reason to believe that the granting of a stay until the petition for rehearing can be duly considered will prejudice the interests of the respondent States. In these circumstances, I conclude that the issuance of the mandate in each of these cases should be, and hereby is, stayed until further order of this Court.
The decision to grant this stay is not suggestive of my position on the merits of the petition.