Ind. State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC

Decision Date09 June 2009
Docket Number08–1513 (08A1099), 08A1100.,Nos. 08A1096,s. 08A1096
Citation556 U.S. 960,77 USLW 3677,129 S.Ct. 2275,173 L.Ed.2d 1285
PartiesINDIANA STATE POLICE PENSION TRUST, et al. v. CHRYSLER LLC et al. Center for Auto Safety et al. v. Chrysler LLC et al. Patricia Pascale v. Chrysler LLC et al.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

PER CURIAM.

The applications for stay presented to Justice GINSBURG and by her referred to the Court are denied. The temporary stay entered by Justice GINSBURG on June 8, 2009, is vacated.

A denial of a stay is not a decision on the merits of the underlying legal issues. In determining whether to grant a stay, we consider instead whether the applicant has demonstrated (1) a reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari or to note probable jurisdiction; (2) a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will conclude that the decision below was erroneous; and (3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.” Conkright v. Frommert, 556 U.S. 1401, ––––, 129 S.Ct. 1861, 1862, 173 L.Ed.2d 865 (2009) (GINSBURG, J., in chambers) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). In addition, “in a close case it may be appropriate to balance the equities,” to assess the relative harms to the parties, “as well as the interests of the public at large.” Id., at ––––, 129 S.Ct., at 1862 (internal quotation marks omitted).

“A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, ––––, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 1761, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is instead an exercise of judicial discretion, and the party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Ibid. The applicants have not carried that burden.

[T]he propriety of [a stay] is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case,” and the “traditional stay factors contemplate individualized judgments in each case.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Our assessment of the stay factors here is based on the record and proceedings in this case alone.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • In re Motors Liquidation Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 28, 2010
    ...Supreme Court denied certain Chrysler objectors' application for a stay of that sale order. Ind. State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2275, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2009). The Second Circuit then issued its supplemental opinion on August 5, 2009, reaffirming its earli......
2 books & journal articles
  • Alla Raykin, section 363 Sales: Mooting Due Process?
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 29-1, December 2012
    • Invalid date
    ...J. 25, 36 (2010) (discussing Ind. StatePolice Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC (In re Chrysler LLC), 576 F.3d 108, 111 (2d Cir. 2009), aff’d, 556 U.S. 960, 960 (2009), vacated, 130 S. Ct. 1015 (2009), remanded, 592 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2010)).In re Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc., 445 B.R. 143, 180 (......
  • Fred N. David, Interpreting the Supreme Court's Treatment of the Chrysler Bankruptcy and Its Impact on Future Business Reorganizations
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 27-1, March 2011
    • Invalid date
    ...St. John's University School of Law, Retired Partner at Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. 1 Ind. State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC, 129 S. Ct. 2275, 2276 (2009), vacated, 130 S. Ct. 1015 (2009), remanded to sub nom. In re Chrysler LLC, 592 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2010). 2 See, e.g., Nicole Bul......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT