15 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1125 (Miss.1999); Williams v. State, 784 So.2d 230, 236 (Miss.Ct.App.2000). 2009Young v. State, 731 So. 2d 1120, 1125 (Miss. 1999); Williams v. State, 784 So. 2d 230, 236 (Miss. | 8 | 9 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1125 (Miss.1999); Williams v. State, 784 So.2d 230, 236 (Miss.Ct.App.2000). 2009Young v. State, 731 So. 2d 1120, 1125 (Miss. 1999); Williams v. State, 784 So. 2d 230, 236 (Miss. | 6 | 7 |
Nichols v. Stategreen2 sentences2016However, in light of Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965-66 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991), “Solem is to apply only when a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross dispropor-tionality.” Parisi v. State, 119 So.3d 1061, 1067 (¶ 21) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Nichols v. State, 826 So.2d 1288, 1290 (¶ 12) (Miss.2002)). ¶ 10. 2016“The appellate courts will not apply the three-prong disproportionality test when there is a lack of this initial showing.” Nichols v. State, 826 So. 2d 1288, 1290 (¶12) (Miss. 2002). ¶32. | 2 | 2 |
Edwards v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Appellate courts will not apply the three-prong disproportionality test unless there is an initial showing that “a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of ‘gross disproportionality.’ ” Edwards v. State, 800 So.2d 454, 469 (¶ 47) (Miss.2001) (citations omitted). 2008Young v. State , 731 So.2d 1120 , 1125 (Miss. 1999); Williams v. State , 784 So.2d 230 , 236 (Miss.Ct.App. 2000). 800 So.2d at 469 . | 1 | 2 |
Parisi v. Stategreen1 sentence2016However, in light of Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965-66 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991), “Solem is to apply only when a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross dispropor-tionality.” Parisi v. State, 119 So.3d 1061, 1067 (¶ 21) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Nichols v. State, 826 So.2d 1288, 1290 (¶ 12) (Miss.2002)). ¶ 10. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Solem v. Helm
red
2 sentences2016In Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290-92 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), the United States Supreme Court set forth three factors to consider in a disproportionality analysis: (a) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (b) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (c) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. 2016In Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290-92 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), the United States Supreme Court set forth three factors to consider in a disproportionality analysis: (a) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (b) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (c) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. | 4 | 2005–2022 |
Harmelin v. Michigan
green
2 sentences2009Drummer requests that her sentence be reviewed under the three-prong disproportionality test in Sofera v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) (overruled in part by Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)). ¶ 13. 2009Drummer requests that her sentence be reviewed under the three-prong disproportionality test in Sofera v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) (overruled in part by Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)). ¶ 13. | 2 | 2009–2016 |
Rummel v. Estelle
green
1 sentence2016The Mississippi Supreme Court’s application of Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), in Wall serves as a guide in the determination of the threshold comparison. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.