Citation network
Ewing Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 05, 2003
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 11 (2003) October Term, 2002 Syllabus Ewing V. CaliforniaSearch
-
allegations of some or all of his prior relevant convictions. The State Court of Appeal affirmed. Relying on Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
This case demonstrates why 13 a proportionality principle cannot be intelligently applied, and why Solem v. HelmSearch
-
People v. SuperiorSearch
-
to make the crime a misdemeanor. People v. Wil-Search
-
People v. WilliamsSearch
-
Court of Appeal affirmed in an unpublished opinion. No. B143745 (Apr. 25, 2001). Relying on our decision in Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
cf. Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
addressed the proportionality principle as applied to terms of years in a series of cases beginning with Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
id., at 285. In Hutto v. DavisSearch
-
Id., at 374 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Three years after Rummel, in Solem v. HelmSearch
-
ur conclusion today is not inconsistent with Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
Gore v. UnitedSearch
-
Recidivism has long been recognized as a legitimate basis for increased punishment. See AlmendarezTorres v. UnitedSearch
-
Witte v. UnitedSearch
-
quoting Gryger v. BurkeSearch
-
Necochea v. SuperiorSearch
-
is affirmed. It is so ordered. JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in the judgment. In my opinion in Harmelin v. MichiganSearch
-
Out of respect for the principle of stare decisis, I might nonetheless accept the contrary holding of Solem v. HelmSearch
-
concurring in the judgment. I agree with JUSTICE SCALIA'S view that the proportionality test announced in Solem v. HelmSearch
-
the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment contains no proportionality principle. See Harmelin v. MichiganSearch
-
post, at 36, 53 (dissenting opinion), JUSTICE BREYER applies the framework established by Harmelin v. MichiganSearch
-
directs judges to apply their best judgment in determining the proportionality of fines, see, e. g., United States v. BajakajianSearch
-
U. S. 321 , 334-336 (1998), bail, see, e. g., Stack v. BoyleSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 5 (1951), and other forms of punishment, including the imposition of a death sentence, see, e. g., Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
in the context of bail and fines but not in the context of other forms of punishment, such as imprisonment. Solem v. HelmSearch
-
on a drug offender who had no prior felony convictions. Rather, the three-factor analysis established in Solem v. HelmSearch
-
the constitutionality of punitive damages awards on a case-by-case basis. See, e. g., BMW of North America, Inc. v. GoreSearch
-
on a case-by-case basis whether a particular delay is constitutionally permissible or not. See, e. g., Doggett v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
was not unheard of for a statute to authorize a sentence ranging from one year to life, for example. See, e. g., State v. PerleySearch
-
be given of situations in which courts-faced with imprecise commands-must make difficult decisions. See, e. g., Kyles v. WhitleySearch
-
Christensen v. HarrisSearch
-
on any of the justifications for punishment to support, for example, a life sentence for overtime parking. See Rummel v. EstelleSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial