Citation network
Eddings Vs. Oklahoma
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 19, 1982
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. 104 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
U.S. 104 (1982) Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
The ruling was affirmed on appeal. In re M. E., 584 P.2d 1340 (Okla.Crim.App.), cert. denied sub nom. Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
Id. at 1170 (citation omitted). II In Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
by committing use of the death penalty to the absolute discretion of the jury. By the time of our decision in Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
penalty that would serve both goals of measured, consistent application and fairness to the accused. Thus, in Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Similarly, in Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
See Roberts (Harry) v. LouisianaSearch
-
Roberts (Stanislaus) v. LouisianaSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. AsheSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
family history and of emotional disturbance is typically introduced by defendants in mitigation. See McGautha v. CaliforniaSearch
-
expected of adults. Bellotti v. BairdSearch
-
under the Oklahoma statute. See Roberts v. LouisianaSearch
-
application of this aggravating circumstance conformed to that degree of certainty required by our decision in Godfrey v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Because we decide this case on the basis of Locket v. OhioSearch
-
standards -- the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution of a defendant who was 16 at the time of the offense. Cf. Bell v. OhioSearch
-
properly before us. Our jurisdiction does not depend on citation to book and verse. See, e.g., New York ex rel. Bryant v. ZimmermanSearch
-
Criminal Appeals (1980) (court will entertain new arguments upon a petition for rehearing). Cf. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSearch
-
U. S. 469 , 450 U. S. 476 (1975). See also Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Vachon v. NewSearch
-
penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
I write separately to address more fully the reasons why this case must be remanded in light of Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
from prison sentences, Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Surely, no less can be required when the defendant is a minor. One example of the measures taken is in Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
fairly presented to the court below, there is precedent for this Court to consider the merits of the issue. In Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
-
strains to construct a plausible legal theory to support its mandate for the relief granted. I In Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 117 . Because the sentencing proceedings in this case were in no sense inconsistent with Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
factors. See Blocker v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
II In Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
See McGautha v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See Roberts v. LouisianaSearch
-
Godfrey v. GeorgiaSearch
-
of Locket v. OhioSearch
-
Cf. Bell v. OhioSearch
-
Bryant v. ZimmermanSearch
-
Cf. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSearch
-
Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
-
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
of Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
In Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
-
I In Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
See Blocker v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial