COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIANA v. WHITCOMB, GOVERNOR OF INDIANA
Communist Party of Indiana v. Edgar D. Whitcomb, Governor of Indiana No. A-378
Opinion
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.
Applicants have filed a motion denominated an “Application for Stay of Order of United States District Court of the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division,” which order was entered following a hearing on their complaint alleging that the oath required by Indiana law in order for a party to be placed on the ballot was unconstitutional. An examination of the application, however, shows that applicants do not seek a stay of that order, but instead a partial summary reversal of the District Court order entered on October 4, 1972. While a Circuit Justice of this Court apparently has authority under Supreme Court Rule 51 to grant such relief in the form of a mandatory injunction, usage and practice suggest that this extraordinary remedy be employed only in the most unusual case. In order that it be available, the applicants’ right to relief must be indisputably clear. Applicants do not present such a case, and their application is therefore denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(noting that a mandatory injunction is an “extraordinary remedy [to] be employed only in the most unusual case.”)
Cited by 36 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court4
- U.S. Courts of Appeals10
- Federal District Courts19
- Bankruptcy Courts1
- State Highest Courts1
- State Appellate Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.