Citation network
Solem Vs. Helm
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 28, 1983
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. 277 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Solem v. HelmSearch
-
U.S. 277 (1983) Solem v. HelmSearch
-
almost a century. In several cases, the Court has applied the principle to invalidate criminal sentences. E.g., Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
unique to this area. The courts are constantly called upon to draw similar lines in a variety of contexts. Cf. Barker v. WingoSearch
-
Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
Moreover, even if respondent's sentence were commuted, he merely would be eligible to be considered for parole. Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
State v. HelmSearch
-
Court, in a 3-2 decision, affirmed the sentence despite Helm's argument that it violated the Eighth Amendment. State v. HelmSearch
-
the District Court recognized that the sentence was harsh, it concluded that this Court's recent decision in Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. 684 F.2d 582 (1982). The Court of Appeals noted that Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
hollow guarantees, for the royal courts relied on them to invalidate disproportionate punishments. See, e.g., Le Gras v. BailiffSearch
-
the normal criminal sanctions, the common law recognized that these, too, must be proportional. See, e.g., Hodges v. HumkinSearch
-
In the Page 463 U. S. 287 leading case of Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
its shackles and restrictions. The Court next applied the principle to invalidate a criminal sentence in Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
has applied the principle of proportionality to hold capital punishment excessive in certain circumstances. Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
disproportionate punishments, even when it has not been necessary to rely on the proscription. See, e.g., Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
Hutto v. DavisSearch
-
on bail, fines, and other punishments, Ingraham v. WrightSearch
-
exception. The common law principle incorporated into the Eighth Amendment clearly applied to prison terms. See Hodges v. HumkinSearch
-
Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
the proportionality principle in capital cases, we have drawn no distinction with cases of imprisonment. See Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
in a noncapital case. Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
Hutto v. DavisSearch
-
But no penalty is per se constitutional. As the Court noted in Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
similar crime was punishable by only two years' imprisonment and a fine. 217 U.S. at 217 U. S. 380 . Cf. Trop v. DullesSearch
-
Thus, a court is justified in viewing assault with intent to murder as more serious than simple assault. See Roberts v. CollinSearch
-
F.2d 168, 169-170 (CA4 1976) (per curiam), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 973 (1977). Cf. Dembowski v. StateSearch
-
Cannon v. GladdenSearch
-
offers two good examples. A State is constitutionally required to provide an accused with a speedy trial, Klopfer v. NorthSearch
-
to the type of inquiry required by the Speedy Trial Clause. The right to a jury trial is another example. Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
of his life in the state penitentiary. This sentence is far more severe than the life sentence we considered in Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
have been in any other State. B The State argues that the present case is essentially the same as Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
to be considered for parole, and details the standards and procedures applicable at that time. See, e.g., Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
a sentence at any time for any reason without reference to any standards. See, e.g., Connecticut Board of Pardons v. DumschatSearch
-
Amendment. Recognition of such a bare possibility would make judicial review under the Eighth Amendment meaningless. v. TheSearch
-
In O'Neil v. VermontSearch
-
Members of the Court continued to recognize the principle of proportionality in the meantime. See, e.g., Trop v. DullesSearch
-
U. S. 317 . On the contrary, our decision is entirely consistent with this Court's prior cases -- including Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
According to Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
In Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
judge these admittedly rare cases. We reiterate the objective factors that our cases have recognized. See, e.g., Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial