Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Rita Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 21, 2007

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

68 entries 11 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Cooper US Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1887
  2. Blakely Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2004
  3. Ring Vs. Arizona US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2002
  4. Clark Vs. Martinez US Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2005
    Relied / Followed
  5. United States Vs. Myers US Supreme Court · Jan 03, 1944
  6. United States Vs. Moreland US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1922
  7. Pierce Vs. Underwood US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1988
  8. United States Vs. Booker US Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2005
  9. United States Vs. Fernandez US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1836
  10. Raytheon Co. Vs. Hernandez US Supreme Court · Dec 02, 2003
  11. United States Vs. Howard US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1957
  12. Rita v. United
    Search
  13. States - 06-5754 (2007) Syllabus October Term, 2006 Rita V. United
    Search
  14. part and concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Rita v. United
    Search
  15. States - 06-5754 (2007) Opinion of the Court Rita V. United
    Search
  16. Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-5754 Victor a. Rita, Petitioner V. United
    Search
  17. See, e.g. , United States v. Booker
    Search
  18. are split as to the use of a presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences. Compare United States v. Dorcely
    Search
  19. United States v. Green
    Search
  20. United States v. Alonzo
    Search
  21. United States v. Williams
    Search
  22. United States v. Mykytiuk
    Search
  23. United States v. Lincoln
    Search
  24. and United States v. Kristl
    Search
  25. CA10 2006) (per curiam) (same), with United States v. Jimenez-Beltre
    Search
  26. F. 3d 514, 518 (CA1 2006) (en banc) (does not use presumption), United States v. Fernandez
    Search
  27. and United States v. Talley
    Search
  28. other, shoulder a particular burden of persuasion or proof lest they lose their case. C.f., e.g. , Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez
    Search
  29. n. 3 (2003) (citing Reeves v. Sanderson
    Search
  30. Plumbing Products, Inc. , 530 U. S. 133 , 143 (2000), and McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
    Search
  31. Mistretta v. United
    Search
  32. see also Burns v. United
    Search
  33. s factual findings or recommended sentences. See Cunningham v. California
    Search
  34. and Apprendi v. New
    Search
  35. Several courts of appeals have also rejected a presumption of unreasonableness. See, e.g. , United States v. Howard
    Search
  36. United States v. Matheny
    Search
  37. an outside-Guidelines sentence varies in proportion to the degree of the variance. See, e.g. , United States v. Smith
    Search
  38. United States v. Armendariz
    Search
  39. United States v. Davis
    Search
  40. United States v. Dean
    Search
  41. United States v. Dalton
    Search
  42. United States v. Crisp
    Search
  43. CA11 2006). We will consider that approach next Term in United States v. Gall
    Search
  44. and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority. See, e.g. , United States v. Taylor
    Search
  45. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed. Rita v. United
    Search
  46. States - 06-5754 (2007) Stevens, J., Concurring Rita V. United
    Search
  47. s remedial opinion in United States v. Booker
    Search
  48. law. Prior to 2003, appellate courts reviewed sentencing departures for abuse of discretion under our decision in Koon v. United
    Search
  49. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx
    Search
  50. than an appellate judge to decide the issue. Id . , at 560 (quoting Miller v. Fenton
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial