Citation network
Pulley Vs. Harris
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 23, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 37 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Pulley v. HarrisSearch
-
U.S. 37 (1984) Pulley v. HarrisSearch
-
do not require comparative proportionality review by an appellate court in every capital case. The outcome in Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U. S. 153 (upholding Georgia's statutory scheme which required comparative proportionality review), and Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
providing proportionality review are constitutional does not mean that such review is indispensable. Moreover, Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
Rejecting the constitutional claims by citation to earlier cases, the California Supreme Court affirmed. People v. HarrisSearch
-
him with comparative proportionality review. The writ was denied without opinion, and we denied certiorari. Harris v. CaliforniaSearch
-
due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, Harris' submission is not persuasive. He relies on People v. FrersonSearch
-
Page 465 U. S. 42 25 Cal.3d 142, 599 P.2d 587 (1979), and People v. JacksonSearch
-
and therefore cruel and unusual, when imposed for a particular crime or category of crime. See, e.g., Solem v. HelmSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 584 (1977). The death penalty is not in all cases a disproportionate penalty in this sense. Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
the Court of Appeals was of the same view. We do not agree. III Harris' submission is rooted in Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Court examined several of the new state statutes. We upheld one of each of the three sorts mentioned above. See Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
in concluding that Gregg required proportionality review. There is even less basis for reliance on Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
and Proffitt did not establish a constitutional requirement of proportionality review is made clearer by Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
Harris also relies on Zant v. StephensSearch
-
People v. FriersonSearch
-
death sentence to life imprisonment because the evidence did not support the findings of special circumstances. People v. ThompsonSearch
-
U.S. at 465 U. S. 884 , quoting Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
one case beside this one in which the court affirmed a death sentence imposed under the 1977 or later statute. People v. JacksonSearch
-
of the sort at issue here was conducted in that case. At oral argument, counsel for respondent pointed to People v. DillonSearch
-
U.S. at 428 U. S. 251 , quoting State v. DixonSearch
-
proportionality review. Indeed, that is how the Florida Supreme Court, for one, has interpreted it. E.g., McCaskill v. StateSearch
-
that at present the Florida Supreme Court undertakes to provide proportionality review in every case, see Brown v. WainwrightSearch
-
become more enthusiastic, or at least more explicit, about proportionality review in recent years. See, e.g., Williams v. StateSearch
-
Adams v. StateSearch
-
Furman capital punishment statute. It was endorsed in the very first case decided under that statute, see State v. DixonSearch
-
supra, at 10, and frequently acknowledged and performed thereafter, see, e.g., Alvord v. StateSearch
-
Alford v. StateSearch
-
Lamadline v. StateSearch
-
Sullivan v. StateSearch
-
So.2d 609, 613 (1983) (citing State v. DixonSearch
-
that, in others, the court was not explicit about comparative review does not mean none was undertaken. See Messer v. StateSearch
-
penological function and hence fall within the reach of the decision announced by five Members the Court in Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
and Zant v. StephensSearch
-
eliminating the systemic arbitrariness and capriciousness which infected death penalty schemes invalidated by Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
among the three statutes in appraising the quality of the review that was mandated. Last Term, in Zant v. StephensSearch
-
Jones v. StateSearch
-
Henry v. StateSearch
-
Douglas v. StateSearch
-
Thompson v. StateSearch
-
So.2d 1, 5 (1976) (quotes language from State v. DixonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Pulley v. HarrisSearch
-
Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial