Citation network
Stanford Vs. Kentucky
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 1989
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. 361 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Stanford v. KentuckySearch
-
U.S. 361 (1989) Stanford v. KentuckySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
but, rather, to the conceptions of modern American society as reflected by objective evidence. E.g., Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
of national agreement this Court has previously thought sufficient to label a punishment cruel and unusual. See Tison v. ArizonaSearch
-
concluded that this Court has a constitutional obligation to conduct proportionality analysis, see, e.g., Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
least 281 offenders under the age of 18 have been executed in this country, and at least 126 under the age of 17. See V. StreibSearch
-
U. S. 584 , 433 U. S. 592 (1977) (plurality opinion). See also Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
are statutes passed by society's elected representatives. McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
U. S. 279 , 481 U. S. 300 (1987), quoting Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
an adult woman, we stressed that Georgia was the sole jurisdiction that authorized such a punishment. See Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
in which an accomplice takes a life, we emphasized that only eight jurisdictions authorized similar punishment. Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
permitted such punishment. Ford v. WainwrightSearch
-
petitioners' cases are more analogous to Tison v. ArizonaSearch
-
of petitioners, Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Zant v. StephensSearch
-
individualized mitigating factors that sentencers must be permitted to consider is the defendant's age, see Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would invalidate these laws for lack of rational basis. See Dallas v. StanglinSearch
-
post at 492 U. S. 391 (emphasis added), quoting Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
indicators of state laws or jury determinations evidenced a societal consensus against that penalty. See Solem v. HelmSearch
-
Page 492 U. S. 380 Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
Together with No. 87-6026, Wilkins v. MissouriSearch
-
Thompson v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 815 , 487 U. S. 868 -869, n. 4 (1988) (SCALIA, J., dissenting), quoting Palko v. ConnecticutSearch
-
the death penalty. JUSTICE O'CONNOR, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Last Term, in Thompson v. OklahomaSearch
-
is proportional. Thompson, supra at 487 U. S. 853 , quoting Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
U. S. In my view, this Court does have a constitutional obligation to conduct proportionality analysis. See Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
of contemporary attitudes toward the punishment, as evidenced in the actions of legislatures and of juries. McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
that have a death penalty, no minimum age for capital sentences is set in the death penalty statute. See Thompson v. OklahomaSearch
-
that a punishment is beyond Eighth Amendment challenge if it is sometimes handed down by a jury. See, e.g., Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
id. at 487 U. S. 853 -854 (opinion of O'CONNOR, J.), and does so again in this case and in Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
West Virginia Board of Education v. BarnetteSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Stanford v. KentuckySearch
-
E.g., Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
See Tison v. ArizonaSearch
-
See v. StreibSearch
-
See Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial