green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
28.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 ·
…a growing number of courts outside the united states- courts that accept or assume the lawfulness of the death penalty- have held that lengthy delay in administering a lawful death penalty renders the ultimate execution in- human, degrading, or unusually cruel
at p. 995
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. Davis
(2×)
But see Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (Thomas, J., concurring in the denial of certiorari) (rejecting “proposition that a defendant can avail himself of the panoply of appellate and collateral procedures and then complain when his execution is delayed”); Foster v. Florida, 537 U.S. 990 , 123 S.Ct. 470 , 154 L.Ed.2d 359 (2002) (Thomas, J., concurring in the denial of certiorari). {¶ 71} Numerous courts have rejected claims that delays between the imposition and the execution of a death sentence constitute cruel and unusual 23 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO…
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Valle v. Florida
a growing number of courts outside the united states- courts that accept or assume the lawfulness of the death penalty- have held that lengthy delay in administering a lawful death penalty renders the ultimate execution in- human, degrading, or unusually cruel
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Valle v. Florida
(2×)
a growing number of courts outside the united states- courts that accept or assume the lawfulness of the death penalty- have held that lengthy delay in administering a lawful death penalty renders the ultimate execution in- human, degrading, or unusually cruel
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Foster v. Florida
(7×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
consistency would seem to demand that those who accept our death penalty jurisprudence as a given also accept the lengthy delay between sentencing and execution as a necessary consequence
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lee v. Golf Transportation, Inc.
The Court agrees with Coyote that the Supreme Court’s denial of a writ of certiorari “does not constitute a ruling on the merits,” Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990, 990 (1999), or “signify that the Court necessarily agrees with the decision (much less the opinion) below.” Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Danny Hill
Finally, because delays keep states, victims, and petitioners “in limbo,” AEDPA demands that petitions be resolved quickly. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 (b)(3)(D), (d)(1); Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 , 81 n.17 (2008) (Stevens, J., concurring) (quotation omitted) (noting victims’ families are “left in limbo,” to relive a crime “for decades”); Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990, 990 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of cert) (stating that long delays are “inhuman, degrading, or unusually cruel” for the prisoner).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hon. John Creuzot, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 4
Justice Thomas has stated, "I am unaware of any support in the American constitutional tradition or in [the Supreme Court's] precedent for the proposition that a defendant can avail himself of the panoply of appellate and collateral procedures and then complain when his execution is delayed." Knight v. Florida , 528 U.S. 990, 990 (1999) (Thomas, J., concurring). 36.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hon. John Creuzot, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 4
Justice Thomas has stated, “I am unaware of any support in the American constitutional tradition or in [the Supreme Court’s] precedent for the proposition that a defendant can avail himself of the panoply of appellate and collateral procedures and then complain when his execution is delayed.” Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990, 990 (1999) (Thomas, J., concurring). 36 United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 316-17 (1986) (“‘Having sought the aid of the judicial process and realizing the deliberateness that a court employs in reaching a decision, the defendants are not now able to criti…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Mahoney
Id. at 1370 (B. 8 See Johnson v. Bredesen, 130 S. Ct. 541, 542 (2009) (Stevens, J., dis- senting from denial of cert.) (“[M]y strongly held view [is] that state- caused delay in state-sponsored killings can be unacceptably cruel.”); Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990, 993 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of cert) (“Where a delay, measured in decades, reflects the State’s own failure to comply with the Constitution’s demands, the claim that time has rendered the execution inhuman is a particularly strong one.”); Elledge v. Florida, 525 U.S. 944 (1998) (Breyer, J., dissenting …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thompson v. McNeil
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
JUSTICE STEVENS and I have previously written that this is a question that merits the Court’s attention, see, e.g., Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045 (1995) (STEVENS, J., respecting denial of certiorari); Foster v. Florida, 537 U. S. 990 (1999) (BREYER, J., dis senting from denial of certiorari); Knight v. Florida, 528 U. S. 990, 993 (1999) (same), and the delay here is even longer than the delay in those prior cases.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thompson v. McNeil
(2×)
See, e.g., Smith v. Arizona, 552 U. S. ___ , ___ (2007) (BREYER, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Foster v. Florida, 537 U. S. 990, 991 (2002) (same); Knight v. Florida, 528 U. S. 990, 993 (1999) (same); Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045 (1995) (STEVENS, J., respecting denial of certiorari).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Allen v. Ornoski
However, Justice Thomas, concurring in Knight, noted that he is “unaware of any support in the Amer- ican constitutional tradition or in this Court’s precedent for the proposition that a defendant can avail himself of the pano- ply of appellate and collateral procedures and then complain ALLEN v. ORNOSKI 903 when his execution is delayed.” 528 U.S. at 990 (Thomas, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clarence Ray Allen v. Steven W. Ornoski, Warden, of the California State Prison at San Quentin Attorney General of the State of California
However, Justice Thomas, concurring in Knight, noted that he is “unaware of any support in the American constitutional tradition or in this Court’s precedent for the proposition that a defendant can avail himself of the panoply of appellate and collateral procedures and then complain when his execution is de *959 layed.” 528 U.S. at 990, ■ 120 S.Ct. 459 (Thomas, J., concurring). • Allen cannot credibly claim that there is any clearly established law, as determined by the Supreme Court, which would support his Lackey claim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Austin
(2×)
Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. at 990-92, 120 S.Ct. at 459-60 (Thomas, J., concurring in denial of certiorari) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ochoa
(See Knight v. Florida (1999) 528 U.S. 990, 992 [ 120 S.Ct. 459, 460-461 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 ] (conc. mem. opn. of Thomas, J., from denial of petn. for writ of cert.).)
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Lafferty
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In denying certiorari in Knight v. Florida, Justice Thomas stated that there is no "support in the American constitutional tradition or in [the Supreme] Court's precedent for the proposition that a defendant can avail himself of the panoply of appellate and collateral procedures and then complain when his execution is delayed." 528 U.S. at 990, 120 S.Ct. 459 (Thomas, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rolando Ruiz v. Lorie Davis, Director
See Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459, 461 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (Thomas, J., concurring) (concurring in denial of certiorari in extended death-row confinement claims and, in response to Justice Stevens’s "invitation to state and lower courts to serve as 'laboratories’ in which the viability of this claim could receive further study,” arguing that courts "have resoundingly rejected the claim as meritless”); see also Stafford v. Ward, 59 F.3d 1025, 1028 (10th Cir. 1995) ("We conclude that Appellant has failed to show that executing him after fifteen years on death row, …
discussed
Cited "see"
Glossip v. Gross
See Knight, 528 U.S., at 998 , 120 S.Ct. 459 (BREYER, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (one of the primary causes of the delay is the States' "failure to apply constitutionally sufficient procedures at the time of initial [conviction or] sentencing").
cited
Cited "see"
Muhammad v. Tucker
See Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (Knight VI).
cited
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Bredesen
See Knight, 528 U.S., at 990 n. 1, 120 S.Ct. 459 (THOMAS, J. concurring).
discussed
Cited "see"
Allen v. Ornoski
See Knight v. Florida, 528 U. S. 990, 993 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certio- rari); Elledge v. Florida, 525 U. S. 944 (1998) (Breyer, J., dissent- ing from denial of certiorari); Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045 (1995) (Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari).
discussed
Cited "see"
Igartua-De-La-Rosa v. United States
(2×)
See Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990, 996 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (noting U.N.
cited
Cited "see"
Igartúa-De La Rosa v. United States
See Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990, 996 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (noting U.N.
discussed
Cited "see"
Igartua-De-La-Rosa v. United States
See Balzac, 258 U.S. at 312-13 , 42 S.Ct. 343 . 14 Justice Harlan also dissented, famously, in Plessy, 163 U.S. at 552 , 16 S.Ct. 1138 . 15 See John Stuart Mill, On Liberty 10 (Prometheus ed. 1986) ("`[T]he tyranny of the majority' is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on guard."). 16 This Nation's highest court has referred to the provisions of the UDHR on several occasions since its adoption in 1948 See Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990, 996 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (noting U.N.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Simms
(2×)
See Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 ,___, 120 S.Ct. 459, 462 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370, 373 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting); Lackey, 514 U.S. at 1045-46 , 115 S.Ct. at 1421-22 , 131 L.Ed.2d at 305 (Stevens, J., mem. op. on denial of cert. ).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Tatum
(2×)
See United States v. Mullin, 178 F.3d 334, 341 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 454 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jones
See United States v. Mullin, 178 F.3d 334, 341 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 454 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ellison v. Shinn
“The Supreme Court has never held that 5 execution after a long tenure on death row is cruel and unusual punishment.” Allen v. 6 Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 (1999) 7 (Thomas, J., concurring in denial of certiorari) (“I am unaware of any support in the 8 American constitutional tradition or in this Court’s precedent for the proposition that a 9 defendant can avail himself of the panoply of appellate and collateral procedures and then 10 complain when his execution is delayed.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Speer v. Shinn
(Doc. 13 at 284.) This claim is meritless. - 146 - Case 2:16-cv-04193-GMS Document 35 Filed 03/14/23 Page 147 of 151 1 “The Supreme Court has never held that execution after a long tenure on death row 2 is cruel and unusual punishment.” Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2006); see 3 Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., discussing denial 4 of certiorari and noting the claim has not been addressed); Thompson v. McNeil, 556 U.S. 5 1114 (2009) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari; Thomas, 6 J., concurring, discuss…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Garcia v. Shinn
(Doc. 22 at 249.) This claim is meritless. 7 “The Supreme Court has never held that execution after a long tenure on death row 8 is cruel and unusual punishment.” Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2006); see 9 Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., discussing denial 10 of certiorari and noting the claim has not been addressed); Thompson v. McNeil, 556 U.S. 11 1114 (2009) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari; Thomas, 12 J., concurring, discussing Lackey issue); see also Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 (1999) 13 (…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Garza v. Shinn
(Doc. 27 at 370.) This claim is also without merit. 18 “The Supreme Court has never held that execution after a long tenure on death row 19 is cruel and unusual punishment.” Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2006); see 20 Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., discussing denial 21 of certiorari and noting the claim has not been addressed); Thompson v. McNeil, 556 U.S. 22 1114 (2009) (mem.) (Stevens, J. & Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari; Thomas, 23 J., concurring, discussing Lackey issue); see also Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lee
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 99-6509.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 8, 1999.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.