Citation network
Weems Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1910
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
-
Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 217 U.S. 349 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910) Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
Islands and his offense as falsifying a public and official document in this case held sufficient. Carrington v. UnitedSearch
-
it is said, as the point involved in Carrington v. UnitedSearch
-
Carrington v. UnitedSearch
-
It is objected on the other side that Paraiso v. UnitedSearch
-
at any time, no matter what may have been done at some other time. It is true we declined to exercise it in Paraiso v. UnitedSearch
-
States, but we exercised it in Wiborg v. UnitedSearch
-
Clyatt v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 197 U. S. 207 , 197 U. S. 221 , and Crawford v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 212 U. S. 183 . It may be said, however, that Paraiso v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
was taken from the Constitution of the United States, and must have the same meaning. This was decided in Kepner v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 195 U. S. 100 , and Serra v. MortigaSearch
-
U. S. 477 . In Kepner v. UnitedSearch
-
It has been said that, ordinarily, the terms imply something inhuman and barbarous -- torture and the like. McDonald v. CommonwealthSearch
-
majority. No case has occurred in this court which has called for an exhaustive definition. In Pervear v. MassachusettsSearch
-
illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors. A decision from which no one will dissent. In Wilkerson v. UtahSearch
-
was found as a fact by the state court that death by electricity was more humane than death by hanging. In O'Neil v. VermontSearch
-
the Constitution have developed against narrow and restrictive construction. There is an example of this in Cummings v. MissouriSearch
-
application than what a minority of this court Page 217 U. S. 374 thought had been given in Calder v. BullSearch
-
The judgment which established it was pronounced by Chief Justice Marshall ( Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
In the cases in the state courts, different views of the provision are taken. In State v. DriverSearch
-
Other cases have given a narrower construction, feeling constrained thereto by the incidences of history. In Hobbs v. StateSearch
-
cases vary in merit and in their justification of serious consideration. We have seen what the contention was in Hobbs v. StateSearch
-
supra. In others, however, there was more inducement to an historical inquiry. In Commonwealth v. WyattSearch
-
been pronounced Page 217 U. S. 378 to be within the prohibitory clause. Whipping was also sustained in Foote v. StateSearch
-
Md. 264, as a punishment for wife beating. And, it may be, in Aldridge v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Mackin v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 117 U. S. 348 , 117 U. S. 350 . In Hobbs v. StateSearch
-
express anything that contravenes those propositions. Our meaning may be illustrated. For instance, in Territory v. KetchumSearch
-
punishment, and that the latter may be declared illegal, leaving the former to have application. United States v. PridgeonSearch
-
was expressed in In Re Mills, 135 U. S. 263 , 135 U. S. 266 . It was recognized in United States v. PridgeonSearch
-
the Eighth Amendment did not govern the states, by virtue of the adoption of the 14th Amendment. However, in Wilkerson v. UtahSearch
-
yet in Kelly v. StateSearch
-
of the past are not resorted to. Let me briefly refer to some of the cases. Page 217 U. S. 403 In Aldridge v. CommonwealthSearch
-
And, four years later, in 1828, applying the same doctrine in Commonwealth v. WyattSearch
-
identical in terms with the Eighth Amendment, and the scope of the guaranty arose for decision in 1872 in Whitten v. StateSearch
-
In State v. WhiteSearch
-
In State v. HoganSearch
-
Cornelison v. CommonwealthSearch
-
constitutional guaranty against cruel and unusual punishment was considered and disposed of by the court in State v. BorgstromSearch
-
In Territory v. KetchumSearch
-
the court now Page 217 U. S. 408 holds, I am, of course, not unmindful that a North Carolina case ( State v. DriverSearch
-
N. C. 423) is cited by the court as authority, and that a Louisiana case ( State ex rel. Garvey et. al. v. WhitakerSearch
-
their origin and their significance at the time of their adoption in the instrument may not be denied -- Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
Kepner v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial