Citation network
Loving Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 09, 1996
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
- Distinguished
-
Loving v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 517 U.S. 748 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Loving V. UnitedSearch
-
On the assumption that Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
imposition of a more severe sentence on the accused compared to others found guilty of murder, see, e. g., Lowenfield v. PhelpsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the killing himself. Because the Eighth Amendment does not permit death to be imposed in those circumstances, Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
and may not be conveyed to another branch or entity, Field v. ClarkSearch
-
exercising the delegated authority possesses independent authority over the subject matter. See, e. g., United States v. MazurieSearch
-
formerly the United States Court of Military Appeals (CMA)) affirmed, 41 M. J. 213 (1994), relying on United States v. CurtisSearch
-
the CMA confronted a challenge to the constitutionality of the military capital punishment scheme in light of Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
that Furman and the case law resulting from it are applicable to the crime and sentence in question. Cf. Trop v. DullesSearch
-
U. S. 231 , 244 (1988) (quoting Zant v. StephensSearch
-
killing himself. The Eighth Amendment does not permit the death penalty to be imposed in those circumstances. Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSearch
-
Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
scheme that one branch of the Government may not intrude upon the central prerogatives of another. See Plaut v. SpendthriftSearch
-
ofpowers doctrine requires that a branch not impair another in the performance of its constitutional duties. Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
Nixon v. AdministratorSearch
-
Jefferson 319 (P. Ford ed. 1904) (letter to E. Carrington, Aug. 4, 1787). See also A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
that Congress must be permitted to delegate to others at least some authority that it could exercise itself. Wayman v. SouthardSearch
-
Field, supra, at 693-694, quoting Cincinnati, W & z. R. Co. v. CommissionersSearch
-
in colonial America, the Framers harbored a deep distrust of executive military power and military tribunals. See Reid v. CovertSearch
-
Solorio v. UnitedSearch
-
No. 23, at 147 (emphasis deleted). The later-added Bill of Rights limited this power to some degree, cf. Burns v. WilsonSearch
-
like Parliament, exercises a power of precedence over, not exclusion of, Executive authority. Cf. United States v. EliasonSearch
-
should have less capacity to make measured and appropriate delegations of this power than of any other, see Skinner v. Mid-AmericaSearch
-
cf. Lichter v. UnitedSearch
-
on this particular Article I power, for we give Congress the highest deference in ordering military affairs. Rostker v. GoldbergSearch
-
U. S. 506 , 518 (1911). See also Touby v. UnitedSearch
-
certain circumstances to supply the notice to defendants the Constitution requires. See M. Kraus & Bros., Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. GTESearch
-
Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102 , 118, n. 13 (1980) (quoting Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCCSearch
-
UCMJ in 1950, well before the need for eliminating absolute discretion in capital sentencing was established in Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
J. W Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Though in 1935 we struck down two delegations for lack of an intelligible principle, A. L. A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 295 U. S. 495 (1935), and Panama Refining Co. v. RyanSearch
-
without exception, delegations under standards phrased in sweeping terms. See, e. g., National Broadcasting Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
President might have more weight. We find no fault, however, with the delegation in this case. In United States v. CurtisSearch
-
Syllabus Loving V. UnitedSearch
-
Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial