Legal Opinion
Taylor v. State of Ariz.
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided March 21, 1997No. CIV 72-21 PHX RCBPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BROOMFIELD, Chief Judge.
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3626, Defendants moved for immediate termination of a 1972 consent decree entered in this case. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on the basis that the PLRA is unconstitutional. On December 2, 1996, the court heard arguments from the parties, the United States, appearing as intervenor, 1 and the Constitutional Defense Council (“CDC”), 2 appearing as amicus curiae, on December 2,1996. During the hearing, the court granted Defendants’ motion to terminate the consent decree, but it stayed the…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hadix v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
- Ruiz v. JohnsonDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1999
- Taylor v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Taylor v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Denike v. FauverDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.