Citation network
Rummel Vs. Estelle
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 18, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 263 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
U.S. 263 (1980) Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
this claim, first noting that this Court had already rejected a constitutional attack upon Art. 63, see Spencer v. TexasSearch
-
of the Court of Appeals reversed. 568 F.2d 1193 (CA5 1978). The majority relied upon this Court's decision in Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 349 (1910), and a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Hart v. CoinerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Rummel does not challenge the constitutionality of Texas' recidivist statute as a general proposition. In Spencer v. TexasSearch
-
Cf. Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
it a crime to be addicted to the use of narcotics violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments). See also Ingraham v. WrightSearch
-
prohibits imposition of a sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime. See, e.g., Weems v. PageSearch
-
years, this proposition has appeared most frequently in opinions dealing with the death penalty. See, e.g., Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
for purposes of Eighth Amendment analysis, has been repeated time and time again in our opinions. See, e.g., Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
punishment, successful challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences have been exceedingly rare. In Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
on each of seven counts of mail fraud. See Badders v. UnitedSearch
-
implicit in our more recent decisions as well. As was noted by MR. JUSTICE WHITE, writing for the plurality in Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Amendment claim that seems factually indistinguishable from that advanced by Rummel in the present case. In Graham v. WestSearch
-
have indicated a willingness to review the proportionality of such sentences under the Eighth Amendment. See State v. LeeSearch
-
Hart v. CoinerSearch
-
to compare those States that impose capital punishment for a specific offense with those States that do not. See Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
offenders who fall within the literal terms of such statutes. See Oyler v. BolesSearch
-
in the other States. As Mr. Justice Holmes noted in his dissenting Page 445 U. S. 282 opinion in Lochner v. NewSearch
-
lie, subject only to those strictures of the Eighth Amendment that can be informed by objective factors. See Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Preliminarily, the respondent argues that Rummel's claim is barred by Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
See Transcript of Record in Graham v. WestSearch
-
had not been held applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, see, e.g., Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. ResweberSearch
-
had assumed, without deciding, that the States could not inflict cruel and unusual punishments. See, e.g., Howard v. FlemingSearch
-
clearly attacked the alleged disproportionality of his sentence. See Brief for Plaintiff in Error in Graham v. WestSearch
-
Brief for Defendant in Error in Graham v. WestSearch
-
of two prior felonies, but also that he actually serve time in prison for each of those offenses. See Cromeans v. StateSearch
-
each succeeding conviction was subsequent to both the commission of and the conviction for the prior offense. See Tyra v. StateSearch
-
Rogers v. StateSearch
-
U.S. at 433 U. S. 594 -595. Here, if there was a watershed comparable to Furman, it was Spencer v. TexasSearch
-
prohibition of the Eighth Amendment. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter noted for the Court in Gore v. UnitedSearch
-
is not extensive, we can be certain that the Framers intended to proscribe inhumane methods of punishment. See Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
In two 19th-century cases, the Court considered constitutional challenges to forms of capital punishment. In Wilkerson v. UtahSearch
-
conclude that electrocution would not deprive the petitioner of due process of law. See also Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. ResweberSearch
-
Granucci, supra at 860. See Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U. S. 153 , 428 U. S. 169 (1976) (opinion of STEWART, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ.). In Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 366 -367. In both capital and noncapital cases this Court has recognized that the decision in Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Rummel v. EstelleSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial