Citation network
Godfrey Vs. Georgia
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 19, 1980
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
-
U.S. 420 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Godfrey v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U.S. 420 (1980) Godfrey v. GeorgiaSearch
-
This statutory aggravating circumstance was held not to be unconstitutional on its face in Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
define the crimes for which death may be imposed in a way that obviates standardless sentencing discretion. Cf. Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Georgia Supreme Court's construction of the statutory provision at issue here was unconstitutionally vague under Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
b) (7) (1978). In Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
b)(7) is unconstitutionally vague. The court noted that Georgia's death penalty legislation had been upheld in Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
aggravating circumstance. 243 Ga. at 309-311, 253 S.E.2d at 717-718. Two justices dissented. II In Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
that create a substantial risk that the punishment will be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Page 446 U. S. 428 Id. at 428 U. S. 188 , quoting Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
supra at 428 U. S. 196 , n. 47. See also Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
for cases which do not fit within any other statutory aggravating circumstance. Harris v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Court in 1976, the Georgia Supreme Court had affirmed two death sentences based wholly on (b)(7). See McCorquodale v. StateSearch
-
House v. StateSearch
-
Harris v. StateSearch
-
supra, at 732-733, 230 S.E.2d at 10-11. Subsequently, in Blake v. StateSearch
-
crimes. These factors certainly did not remove the criminality from the petitioner's acts. But, as was said in Gardner v. FloridaSearch
-
b) (1978). In Arnold v. StateSearch
-
U.S. at 428 U. S. 198 , quoting Coley v. StateSearch
-
Profitt v. FloridaSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Ruffin v. StateSearch
-
Hill v. StateSearch
-
Ga. 794, 802, 229 S.E.2d 737, 742-743 (1976). Cf. Holton v. StateSearch
-
Banks v. StateSearch
-
McCorquodale v. StateSearch
-
b)(7). See, e.g., Baker v. StateSearch
-
Collins v. StateSearch
-
Johnson v. StateSearch
-
Lamb v. StateSearch
-
b)(7). See, e.g., Holton v. StateSearch
-
Thomas v. StateSearch
-
Dix v. StateSearch
-
Birt v. StateSearch
-
Georgia Supreme Court's construction of the provision at issue in this case is unconstitutionally vague under Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Court's application of this provision, and second, to suggest why the enterprise on which the Court embarked in Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
In Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
b)(7). Reasoning from two decisions rendered shortly after our decision in Gregg, Blake v. StateSearch
-
Ga. 292, 236 S.E.2d 637 (1977), and Harris v. StateSearch
-
But we cannot stop reading the Georgia Reports after those two cases. In Ruffin v. StateSearch
-
no torture or aggravated battery was present. See also Holton v. StateSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Godfrey v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Cf. Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
II In Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
See McCorquodale v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial