Citation network
Arizona Vs. Rumsey
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 29, 1984
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. 203 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Arizona v. RumseySearch
-
U.S. 203 (1984) Arizona v. RumseySearch
-
rejected respondent's argument that imposing the death penalty would violate Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
in the sentencing proceeding -- whether death was the appropriate punishment for respondent's offense. United States v. WilsonSearch
-
sentence he had initially received was set aside on appeal. We agree with the Supreme Court of Arizona that Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
In this regard, the Court does not agree with the State's interpretation of A.R.S. 13-703(F)(5) and State v. MadsenSearch
-
made at the first proceeding. App. 78-94. Respondent argued that imposing the death penalty would violate Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
U. S. 430 (1981), North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
that the death sentence violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted in North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
Court of Arizona addressed only the first argument. It concluded that, under this Court's decision in Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
for a writ of certiorari. We granted certiorari, 464 U.S. 1038 (1983), and now affirm. II In Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
trial judge, rather than the jury, does not render the sentencing proceeding any less like a trial. See United States v. MorrisonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
imposed after a completed Arizona capital sentencing hearing is a judgment like the sentence at issue in Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
United States v. ScottSearch
-
this Court's cases hold that an acquittal on the merits bars retrial even if based on legal error. United States v. WilsonSearch
-
trial after an acquittal at his first, that is precisely what has happened to respondent. III Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
cases, any departure from the doctrine of stare decisis demands special justification. See, e.g., Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
robbery. Applying the interpretation given the Double Jeopardy Clause by a bare majority of this Court in Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
would prevent the imposition of the death sentence. That much was made clear in our decision in United States v. WilsonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Arizona v. RumseySearch
-
Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
United States v. WilsonSearch
-
of A.R.S. 13-703(F)(5) and State v. MadsenSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment. Benton v. MarylandSearch
-
II In Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
See United States v. MorrisonSearch
-
III Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial