Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Dobbert Vs. Florida

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 17, 1977

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

71 entries 7 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Gibson Vs. Mississippi US Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1896
  2. Beazell Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1925
  3. Thompson Vs. Utah US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1898
  4. Cummings Vs. Missouri US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1867
  5. Murphy Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1975
  6. Kring Vs. Missouri US Supreme Court · Apr 02, 1883
  7. Furman Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1972
  8. U.S. 282 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Dobbert v. Florida
    Search
  9. U.S. 282 (1977) Dobbert v. Florida
    Search
  10. TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Syllabus The Florida death penalty statute, which was upheld in Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  11. because the earlier statute in effect at such time was later held invalid by the Florida Supreme Court under Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  12. this Court struck down a Georgia death penalty statute as violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  13. U. S. 238 . Shortly thereafter, on July 17, 1972, in Donaldson v. Sack
    Search
  14. Page 432 U. S. 289 the Opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Powell, and Mr. Justice Stevens in Proffitt V. Florida
    Search
  15. delimit the scope of this Latin phrase, but have instead given it substance by an accretion of case law. In Beazell v. Ohio
    Search
  16. provision was intended to secure substantial personal rights against arbitrary and oppressive legislation, see Malloy v. South
    Search
  17. it may work to the disadvantage of a defendant, a procedural change is not ex post facto. For example, in Hopt v. Utah
    Search
  18. greater punishment, nor changed the proof necessary to convict. Id. at 110 U. S. 589 . In Thompson v. Missouri
    Search
  19. there was no change in the quantum of punishment attached to the crime. The following language from Hopt v. Utah
    Search
  20. Tedder v. State
    Search
  21. So.2d 908, 910 (1975) (emphasis added) (cited with approbation in Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  22. proof of this fact is that this old statute was held to be violative of the United States Constitution in Donaldson v. Sack
    Search
  23. was, after the time he acted, found by the Supreme Court of Florida to be invalid under our decision in Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  24. murder Petitioner's highly technical argument is at odds with the statement of this Court in Chicot County Dist. v. Baxter
    Search
  25. conferring no rights and imposing no duties, and hence affording no basis for the challenged decree. Norton v. Shelby
    Search
  26. Chicago, I. L. Ry. Co. v. Page
    Search
  27. before becoming eligible for parole. The prior statute contained no such limitation. The Florida Supreme Court, in Lee v. State
    Search
  28. and so any added onus attaching to it as a result of the change in Florida law had no effect on him. In Lindsey v. Washington
    Search
  29. punitive measure to a crime already consummated, to the detriment or material disadvantage of the wrongdoer. Kring v. Missouri
    Search
  30. Malloy v. South
    Search
  31. State v. Callahan
    Search
  32. State v. Smith
    Search
  33. not have attached to it under the old. D After our Furman decision and its own decision in Donaldson v. Sack
    Search
  34. Court resentenced all prisoners under sentence of death pursuant to the old statute to life imprisonment. Anderson v. State
    Search
  35. coverage, including a number of television and radio stories regarding the various aspects of the case. In Murphy v. Florida
    Search
  36. Id. at 799-800, quoting from Irwin v. Dowd
    Search
  37. The constitutionality of this statute has been upheld by the Florida Supreme Court, State v. Dixon
    Search
  38. So.2d 1 (1973), and by this Court, Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  39. These are independent bases for our decision. For example, in Beazell v. Ohio
    Search
  40. penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  41. in Florida. Several months after his offense, Florida enacted the death penalty statute that was upheld in Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  42. test the Court has applied in past cases construing the Ex Post Facto Clause. That test was stated in Lindsey v. Washington
    Search
  43. was most plainly revealed by the nationwide response to this Court's invalidation of the death penalty in Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  44. Yet the Court's holding may lead to results which are intolerably arbitrary. For example, the trial in Miller v. State
    Search
  45. In response to this Court's decision in Furman v. Georgia
    Search
  46. to exist, and that there was no possible procedure under existing Florida law for imposing the penalty. Donaldson v. Sack
    Search
  47. State v. Whalen
    Search
  48. Court could not serve as a basis for a retroactive attack on a final judgment in a civil case. Chicot County Dist. v. Baxter
    Search
  49. Cf. Kring v. Missouri
    Search
  50. Id. at 107 U. S. 230 -231, quoting Hartung v. People
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial