Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Furman Vs. Georgia

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 29, 1972

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

54 entries 3 linked 51 unlinked
Show
  1. Wilkerson Vs. Utah US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  2. Trop Vs. Dulles US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1958
  3. O'Neil Vs. Vermont US Supreme Court · Apr 04, 1892
  4. U.S. 238 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  5. U.S. 238 (1972) Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  6. That the requirements of due process ban cruel and unusual punishment is now settled. Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
    Search
  7. Robinson v. California
    Search
  8. and unusual punishments forbids the judicial imposition of them as well as their imposition by the legislature. Weems v. United
    Search
  9. Weems v. United
    Search
  10. States, supra, at 217 U. S. 378 . A like statement was made in Trop v. Dulles
    Search
  11. Judge Tuttle, indeed, made abundantly clear in Novak v. Beto
    Search
  12. U. S. 413 . The Court in McGautha v. California
    Search
  13. Page 408 U. S. 249 Mr. Justice Field, dissenting in O'Neil v. Vermont
    Search
  14. its face may be applied in such a way as to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
    Search
  15. Together with No. 69-5030, Jackson v. Georgia
    Search
  16. on certiorari to the same court, and No. 69-5031, Branch v. Texas
    Search
  17. As the Court noted in Weems v. United
    Search
  18. U. S. 373 . It was almost 80 years before this Court had occasion to refer to the Clause. See Pervear v. The
    Search
  19. Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 475, 72 U. S. 479 -480 (1867). These early cases, as the Court pointed out in Weems v. United
    Search
  20. In Wilkerson v. Utah
    Search
  21. The Court then observed, commenting upon the passage just quoted from Wilkerson v. Utah
    Search
  22. Clause prevailed, the Clause would have been effectively read out of the Bill of Rights. As the Court noted in Weems v. United
    Search
  23. contrary to the implications in Wilkerson v. Utah
    Search
  24. Board of Education v. Barnette
    Search
  25. That knowledge, of course, is but the beginning of the inquiry. In Trop v. Dulles
    Search
  26. in the judgment. The infliction of an extremely severe punishment will often entail physical suffering. See Weems v. United
    Search
  27. at 356 U. S. 101 , severe mental pain may be inherent in the infliction of a particular punishment. See Weems v. United
    Search
  28. That, indeed, was one of the conclusions underlying the holding of the plurality in Trop v. Dulles
    Search
  29. of cadena temporal, see nn. 11-12, supra, was an obvious basis for the Court's decision in Weems v. United
    Search
  30. human dignity. The infliction of an extremely severe punishment, then, like the one before the Court in Weems v. Unite
    Search
  31. being. That attitude may be apparent apart from the severity of the punishment itself. In Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
    Search
  32. or for being addicted to narcotics. Robinson v. California
    Search
  33. As Wilkerson v. Utah
    Search
  34. in such cases, Trop v. Dulles
    Search
  35. Page 408 U. S. 278 Thus, for example, Weems v. United
    Search
  36. States, 217 U.S. at 217 U. S. 380 , and Trop v. Dulles
    Search
  37. may be considered is the existence of the punishment in jurisdictions other than those before the Court. Wilkerson v. Utah
    Search
  38. In Robinson v. California
    Search
  39. less severe punishment adequate to achieve the purposes for which the punishment is inflicted, cf. Robinson v. California
    Search
  40. and therefore excessive. This principle first appeared in our cases in Mr. Justice Field's dissent in O'Neil v. Vermont
    Search
  41. U.S. Supreme Court Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  42. Francis v. Resweber
    Search
  43. Novak v. Beto
    Search
  44. the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
    Search
  45. Jackson v. Georgia
    Search
  46. Branch v. Texas
    Search
  47. the Clause. See Pervear v. The
    Search
  48. In Trop v. Dulles
    Search
  49. See Weems v. United
    Search
  50. Weems v. Unite
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial