Citation network
WisconsIn Vs. Mitchell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 11, 1993
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. 476 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Wisconsin V. MitchellSearch
-
one's beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because they are protected by the First Amendment. Dawson v. DelawareSearch
-
or to prove motive or intent, subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like. Haupt v. UnitedSearch
-
Jan Graham of Utah, Jeffrey L. Amestoy of Vermont, Mary Sue Terry of Virginia, Christine O. Gregoire of Washington, Daryl v. McGrawSearch
-
of penalty-enhancement statutes and analogous statutes covering bias-motivated offenses. Compare, e. g., State v. PlowmanSearch
-
Ore. 157, 838 P. 2d 558 (1992) (upholding Oregon statute), with State v. WyantSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
assault is not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. See Roberts v. UnitedSearch
-
NAACP v. ClaiborneSearch
-
in addition to evidence bearing on guilt in determining what sentence to impose on a convicted defendant. See Payne v. TennesseeSearch
-
Williams v. NewSearch
-
cf. Tison v. ArizonaSearch
-
abstract beliefs, however obnoxious to most people, may not be taken into consideration by a sentencing judge. Dawson v. DelawareSearch
-
Id., at 165. Thus, in Barclay v. FloridaSearch
-
alter the result here. For the primary responsibility for fixing criminal penalties lies with the legislature. Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
Gore v. UnitedSearch
-
and state antidiscrimination laws, which we have previously upheld against constitutional challenge. See Roberts v. UnitedSearch
-
Hishon v. KingSearch
-
subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like. Nearly half a century ago, in Haupt v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., at 642. See also Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSearch
-
Syllabus Wisconsin V. MitchellSearch
-
the First Amendment. Dawson v. DelawareSearch
-
Haupt v. UnitedSearch
-
State v. PlowmanSearch
-
State v. WyantSearch
-
the First Amendment. See Roberts v. UnitedSearch
-
See Payne v. TennesseeSearch
-
Tison v. ArizonaSearch
-
See Roberts v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. O'BrienSearch
-
Cox v. LouisianaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial