Citation network
Graham Vs. Florida
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 17, 2010
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, 2009 Graham V. FloridaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
has concluded that capital punishment is impermissible for nonhomicide crimes against individuals. E.g., Kennedy v. LouisianaSearch
-
s characteristics, the Court has prohibited death for defendants who committed their crimes before age 18, Roper v. SimmonsSearch
-
U. S. 551 , or whose intellectual functioning is in a low range, Atkins v. VirginiaSearch
-
While more common in terms of absolute numbers than the sentencing practices in, e.g., Atkins and Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
legislatures in those jurisdictions have deliberately concluded that such sentences would be appropriate. See Thompson v. OklahomaSearch
-
retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, see Ewing v. CaliforniaSearch
-
J., joined, and in which Alito, J., joined as to Parts I and III. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Graham v. FloridaSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Graham V. FloridaSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-7412 Terrance Jamar Graham, Petitioner V. FloridaSearch
-
Punishments Clause, made applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 97 , 102 (1976) (quoting Trop v. DullesSearch
-
slip op., at 8) (quoting Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Clause prohibits the imposition of inherently barbaric punishments under all circumstances. See, e.g., Hope v. PelzerSearch
-
s seventh nonviolent felony, the crime of passing a worthless check. Solem v. HelmSearch
-
however, it has been difficult for the challenger to establish a lack of proportionality. A leading case is Harmelin v. MichiganSearch
-
s so-called three-strikes recidivist sentencing scheme. Ewing v. CaliforniaSearch
-
see also Lockyer v. AndradeSearch
-
s third nonviolent felony, the crime of obtaining money by false pretenses, Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
and a sentence of 40 years for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and distribution of marijuana, Hutto v. DavisSearch
-
see also Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
categorical rules prohibiting the death penalty for defendants who committed their crimes before the age of 18, Roper v. SimmonsSearch
-
U. S. 551 (2005), or whose intellectual functioning is in a low range, Atkins v. VirginiaSearch
-
U. S. 304 (2002). See also Thompson v. OklahomaSearch
-
Atkins , supra, at 312 (quoting Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
Tr. of Oral Arg. in Sullivan v. FloridaSearch
-
Naovarath v. StateSearch
-
Johnson v. TexasSearch
-
Workman v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Mistretta v. UnitedSearch
-
App. 394. Another example comes from Sullivan v. FloridaSearch
-
follow the law and needed to be kept away from society for the duration of his life. Brief for Respondent in Sullivan v. FloridaSearch
-
Shepherd v. CommonwealthSearch
-
West Supp. 2009) Graham v. FloridaSearch
-
s holding is not entirely consistent with the controlling opinions in Lockyer v. AndradeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial