Citation network
Oregon Vs. Ice
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 14, 2009
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2008 Oregon V. IceSearch
-
sentences. On appeal, Ice argued, inter alia, that the sentencing statute was unconstitutional under Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
Jersey , 530 U. S. 466 , 490, and Blakely v. WashingtonSearch
-
in which the rule is rooted. Cunningham v. CaliforniaSearch
-
framers, Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
a discrete criminal justice system is among the basic sovereign prerogatives States retain. See, e.g., Patterson v. NewSearch
-
Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Souter and Thomas, JJ., joined. Oregon v. IceSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Oregon V. IceSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-901 Oregon, Petitioner V. ThomasSearch
-
s jury-trial guarantee, as construed in Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Jersey , 530 U. S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. WashingtonSearch
-
s rule to facts subjecting a defendant to the death penalty, Ring v. ArizonaSearch
-
and facts prompting an elevated sentence under then-mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines, United States v. BookerSearch
-
U. S. 220 , 244 (2005). Most recently, in Cunningham v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
the constitutional jury right must be informed by the historical role of the jury at common law. See, e.g., Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
the role of the States as laboratories for devising solutions to difficult legal problems. See New State Ice Co. v. LiebmannSearch
-
State v. KeeneSearch
-
State v. AllenSearch
-
P. 3d 1049, 1056 (2007). Footnote 7 Compare , e.g ., People v. WagenerSearch
-
with State v. FosterSearch
-
N. E. 2d 470 (holding Apprendi applicable). Footnote 8 E.g., King v. WilkesSearch
-
see also Lee v. WalkerSearch
-
Footnote 9 E.g. , Russell v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Howard v. UnitedSearch
-
Footnote 10 E.g. , Queen v. CutbushSearch
-
Scalia, J., Dissenting Oregon V. IceSearch
-
Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Souter, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting. The rule of Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
the punishment he imposed. United States v. BookerSearch
-
the penal consequences attached to the fact, and not to its formal definition as an element of the crime. Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
Ante , at 11 (quoting Cunningham v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
and Blakely v. WashingtonSearch
-
Cunningham v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Patterson v. NewSearch
-
Oregon, Petitioner V. ThomasSearch
-
Federal Sentencing Guidelines, United States v. BookerSearch
-
Williams v. FloridaSearch
-
See New State Ice Co. v. LiebmannSearch
-
People v. WagenerSearch
-
State v. FosterSearch
-
E.g., King v. WilkesSearch
-
Lee v. WalkerSearch
-
Russell v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Queen v. CutbushSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial