Citation network
HarmelIn Vs. Michigan
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 27, 1991
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. 957 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Harmelin v. MichiganSearch
-
U.S. 957 (1991) Harmelin v. MichiganSearch
-
of this Court's death penalty jurisprudence, see, e.g., Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
penitentiary -- the length of the sentence actually imposed is purely a matter of legislative prerogative. Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
U. S. 263 , 445 U. S. 274 . Solem v. HelmSearch
-
rejected in Rummel, supra, at Page 501 U. S. 958 445 U. S. 281 -282, and n. 27, and Hutto v. DavisSearch
-
Eighth Amendment proportionality requirement, it has not departed to the extent that Solem suggests. While Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
requirement, either in this Court or the lower federal courts, for six decades. This Court's first such opinion, Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Clause encompasses a narrow proportionality principle that applies to noncapital sentences. See, e.g., Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
The Eighth Amendment, which applies against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
In Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
Id. at 445 U. S. 274 , n. 11. Two years later, in Hutto v. DavisSearch
-
U.S. at 445 U. S. 272 (discussing as the solitary example Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
A year and a half after Davis, we uttered what has been our last word on this subject to date. Solem v. HelmSearch
-
that the doctrine of stare decisis is less rigid in its application to constitutional precedents, see Payne v. TennesseeSearch
-
Burnet v. CoronadoSearch
-
fines as a method of punishment, courts apparently applied the proportionality principle while sentencing. Hodges v. HumkinSearch
-
They do not agree, however, Page 501 U. S. 968 on which abuses. See Ingraham v. WrightSearch
-
of its body. (JUSTICE MARSHALL's concurrence in Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
For, as we observed in Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
in any case, have been impossible. There were no common law punishments in the federal system, See United States v. HudsonSearch
-
Stanford v. KentuckySearch
-
cruel methods of punishment that are not regularly or customarily employed. E.g., Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. ResweberSearch
-
In re Kemmler, supra at 136 U. S. 446 -447. See also United States v. CollinsSearch
-
The actions of the First Congress, which are, of course, persuasive evidence of what the Constitution means, Marsh v. ChambersSearch
-
Carroll v. UnitedSearch
-
considered these newly enacted penalties unconstitutional by virtue of their disproportionality. Cf. United States v. TullySearch
-
An early (perhaps the earliest) judicial construction of the federal provision is illustrative. In Barker v. PeopleSearch
-
Barker v. PeopleSearch
-
these provisions did not proscribe disproportionality, but only certain modes of punishment. For example, in Aldridge v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Va. at 449-450 (emphasis in original). Accord, Commonwealth v. HitchingsSearch
-
Garcia v. TerritorySearch
-
Page 501 U. S. 984 Whitten v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Cummins v. PeopleSearch
-
State v. WilliamsSearch
-
State v. WhiteSearch
-
People v. MorrisSearch
-
Hobbs v. StateSearch
-
State v. HoganSearch
-
State v. BeckerSearch
-
Jackson v. UnitedSearch
-
Territory v. KetchumSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial