Legal Opinion
Hadix v. Johnson
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided July 5, 1996No. 80-CV-73581-DTPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING A STAY OF THE CONSENT DECREE
FEIKENS, District Judge.
On June 10, 1996, defendants moved for immediate termination of the consent decree in this case pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub.L.No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, amending 18 U.S.C. § 3626.
The complaint originating this action was filed on August 12, 1980; I quote from the Introduction to the Consent Decree (“consent decree” or “decree”). It reads: “[Paragraph] 3. The complaint in this case alleges that the rights of the Plaintiffs secured by the First, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Martin v. Hunter's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1816
- Hayburn's CaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1792
- Arrow Transportation Co. v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1963
3Cited by11 opinions
- James Benjamin v. Michael Jacobson, Commissioner of the Department of Correction of the City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Hadix v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
- Benjamin v. JacobsonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Ruiz v. JohnsonDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1999
- Richard A. French v. Jack R. Duckworth, and United States of America, Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.