Taylor v. Crawford

Decision Date21 April 2008
Docket NumberNo. 07–303.,07–303.
CitationTaylor v. Crawford, 128 S.Ct. 2047, 170 L.Ed.2d 793, 76 USLW 3094, 76 USLW 3564, 76 USLW 3568, 553 U.S. 1004 (2008)
PartiesMichael Anthony TAYLOR, petitioner, v. Larry CRAWFORD, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, et al.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Case below, 487 F.3d 1072.

*2048 Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • Bucklew v. Precythe
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 1, 2019
    ...challenge Missouri's similar lethal injection protocol. Taylor v. Crawford , 487 F.3d 1072 (CA8 2007), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1004, 128 S.Ct. 2047, 170 L.Ed.2d 793 (2008).But that still was not the end of it. Next, Mr. Bucklew and other inmates unsuccessfully challenged Missouri's protocol ......
  • Ringo v. Lombardi
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • March 2, 2010
    ...the sequence will simultaneously mask any visible sign of that pain.487 F.3d 1072, 1082 (8th Cir.2007), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1004, 128 S.Ct. 2047, 170 L.Ed.2d 793 (2008). In Taylor, the Eighth Circuit found persuasive the involvement of medical personnel and rules for administering the ch......
  • Nooner v. Norris
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 8, 2010
    ...to the constitutionality of Missouri's lethal injection protocol. 487 F.3d 1072, 1085 (8th Cir.2007), cert. denied, 553 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2047, 170 L.Ed.2d 793 (2008). We determined that the constitutionality of Missouri's protocol "depends upon whether the protocol as written would infli......
  • Clemons v. Crawford
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 10, 2009
    ...line (IV) placed in the femoral vein. See Taylor v. Crawford, 487 F.3d 1072, 1074 (8th Cir.2007), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2047, 170 L.Ed.2d 793 (2008). First, 5 grams of sodium pentothal (also known as thiopental) rendered the prisoner unconscious, then 60 milligrams of pancur......
  • Get Started for Free