Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Arkansas opinions name it 3 courts 1996–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thessing v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Finally, Ward asserts without citation to authority that “although this court denied a similar Eighth Amendment challenge in Thessing v. State, 365 Ark. 384 , 230 S.W.3d 526 (2006), that case is not controlling here. 2015Finally, Ward asserts without citation to authority that “although this court denied a similar Eighth Amendment challenge in Thessing v. State, 365 Ark. 384 , 230 S.W.3d 526 (2006), that case is not controlling here. | 1 | 2 |
Sharvelt Marquette Mister v. State of Arkansasgreen2 sentences2026See Mister v. State, 2022 Ark. 35, at 7 , 639 S.W.3d 331, 336 (rejecting an Eighth Amendment claim on a petition to correct an illegal sentence). 2026See Mister v. State, 2022 Ark. 35, at 7 , 639 S.W.3d 331, 336 (rejecting an Eighth Amendment claim on a petition to correct an illegal sentence). | 1 | 1 |
Grissom v. Hobbsgreen2 sentences2017See Grissom v. Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 449 , 476 S.W.3d 160 (per curiam), cert. denied, Grissom v. Kelley, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 187 , 196 L.Ed.2d 152 (2016). 2017See Grissom v. Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 449 , 476 S.W.3d 160 (per curiam), cert. denied, Grissom v. Kelley, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 187 , 196 L.Ed.2d 152 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Hopkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.green2 sentences2017See Grissom v. Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 449 , 476 S.W.3d 160 (per curiam), cert. denied, Grissom v. Kelley, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 187 , 196 L.Ed.2d 152 (2016). 2017See Grissom v. Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 449 , 476 S.W.3d 160 (per curiam), cert. denied, Grissom v. Kelley, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 187 , 196 L.Ed.2d 152 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Haipe v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017See Grissom v. Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 449 , 476 S.W.3d 160 (per curiam), cert. denied, Grissom v. Kelley, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 187 , 196 L.Ed.2d 152 (2016). 2017See Grissom v. Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 449 , 476 S.W.3d 160 (per curiam), cert. denied, Grissom v. Kelley, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 187 , 196 L.Ed.2d 152 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Nooner v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Thessing v. State, 365 Ark. 384 , 230 S.W.3d 526 (2006) (concluding that a challenge to the “at-the-time-of-the-murder” language did not rise to the level of serious error or a matter essential for the jury’s consideration of the death penalty). |1sNooner concedes that this court denied a similar Eighth Amendment claim on the merits in Thessing, 365 Ark. 384 , 230 S.W.3d 526 , but contends that Thessing is not controlling here because “the United States Supreme Court has made clear [that], whether there is a reasonable likelihood that a challenged instruction precluded the jury from consid 2015See Thessing v. State, 365 Ark. 384 , 230 S.W.3d 526 (2006) (concluding that a challenge to the “at-the-time-of-the-murder” language did not rise to the level of serious error or a matter essential for the jury’s consideration of the death penalty). |1sNooner concedes that this court denied a similar Eighth Amendment claim on the merits in Thessing, 365 Ark. 384 , 230 S.W.3d 526 , but contends that Thessing is not controlling here because “the United States Supreme Court has made clear [that], whether there is a reasonable likelihood that a challenged instruction precluded the jury from consid | 1 | 1 |
Weeks v. Angelonegreen2 sentences2006In Anderson, supra, this court held that where confusing jury forms lead jury members “to disregard any consideration of mitigating circumstances,” the error is not harmless. 357 Ark. at 222 , 163 S.W.3d at 359 ; see also Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225 (2000) (holding that an Eighth Amendment violation does not exist where there is only a slight possibility that the jury considered itself precluded from considering mitigating evidence, but there must be a showing that there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury felt so restrained). 2006In Anderson, supra, this court held that where confusing jury forms lead jury members “to disregard any consideration of mitigating circumstances,” the error is not harmless. 357 Ark. at 222 , 163 S.W.3d at 359 ; see also Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225 (2000) (holding that an Eighth Amendment violation does not exist where there is only a slight possibility that the jury considered itself precluded from considering mitigating evidence, but there must be a showing that there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury felt so restrained). | 1 | 1 |
Whitley v. Albersgreen2 sentences2002In Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 , 5 (1992), the Court elaborated on this standard as follows: In Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986), the principal question before us was what legal standard should govern the Eighth Amendment claim of an inmate shot by a guard during a prison riot. 2002In Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 , 5 (1992), the Court elaborated on this standard as follows: In Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986), the principal question before us was what legal standard should govern the Eighth Amendment claim of an inmate shot by a guard during a prison riot. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whiteside v. State
green
2 sentences2024Specifically, Whiteside claims that instructing the jury it could consider a life-sentence option on the aggravated-robbery charge violated his Eighth Amendment right, noting that in Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme 1 Whiteside v. State, 2011 Ark. 371 , 383 S.W.3d 859 (Whiteside I). 2 Whiteside v. State, 2013 Ark. 176 , 426 S.W.3d 917 (Whiteside II). 3 Whiteside v. State, 2019 Ark. 349 , 588 S.W.3d 720 (Whiteside III). 2 Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison for a nonhomocide offense.4 Whiteside relies on Hicks v. 2024Specifically, Whiteside claims that instructing the jury it could consider a life-sentence option on the aggravated-robbery charge violated his Eighth Amendment right, noting that in Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme 1 Whiteside v. State, 2011 Ark. 371 , 383 S.W.3d 859 (Whiteside I). 2 Whiteside v. State, 2013 Ark. 176 , 426 S.W.3d 917 (Whiteside II). 3 Whiteside v. State, 2019 Ark. 349 , 588 S.W.3d 720 (Whiteside III). 2 Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison for a nonhomocide offense.4 Whiteside relies on Hicks v. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Whiteside v. State
green
2 sentences2024Specifically, Whiteside claims that instructing the jury it could consider a life-sentence option on the aggravated-robbery charge violated his Eighth Amendment right, noting that in Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme 1 Whiteside v. State, 2011 Ark. 371 , 383 S.W.3d 859 (Whiteside I). 2 Whiteside v. State, 2013 Ark. 176 , 426 S.W.3d 917 (Whiteside II). 3 Whiteside v. State, 2019 Ark. 349 , 588 S.W.3d 720 (Whiteside III). 2 Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison for a nonhomocide offense.4 Whiteside relies on Hicks v. 2024Specifically, Whiteside claims that instructing the jury it could consider a life-sentence option on the aggravated-robbery charge violated his Eighth Amendment right, noting that in Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme 1 Whiteside v. State, 2011 Ark. 371 , 383 S.W.3d 859 (Whiteside I). 2 Whiteside v. State, 2013 Ark. 176 , 426 S.W.3d 917 (Whiteside II). 3 Whiteside v. State, 2019 Ark. 349 , 588 S.W.3d 720 (Whiteside III). 2 Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison for a nonhomocide offense.4 Whiteside relies on Hicks v. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Hicks v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2024Specifically, Whiteside claims that instructing the jury it could consider a life-sentence option on the aggravated-robbery charge violated his Eighth Amendment right, noting that in Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme 1 Whiteside v. State, 2011 Ark. 371 , 383 S.W.3d 859 (Whiteside I). 2 Whiteside v. State, 2013 Ark. 176 , 426 S.W.3d 917 (Whiteside II). 3 Whiteside v. State, 2019 Ark. 349 , 588 S.W.3d 720 (Whiteside III). 2 Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison for a nonhomocide offense.4 Whiteside relies on Hicks v. 2024Specifically, Whiteside claims that instructing the jury it could consider a life-sentence option on the aggravated-robbery charge violated his Eighth Amendment right, noting that in Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme 1 Whiteside v. State, 2011 Ark. 371 , 383 S.W.3d 859 (Whiteside I). 2 Whiteside v. State, 2013 Ark. 176 , 426 S.W.3d 917 (Whiteside II). 3 Whiteside v. State, 2019 Ark. 349 , 588 S.W.3d 720 (Whiteside III). 2 Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison for a nonhomocide offense.4 Whiteside relies on Hicks v. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lemuel Whiteside v. State of Arkansas
neutral
2 sentences2024Specifically, Whiteside claims that instructing the jury it could consider a life-sentence option on the aggravated-robbery charge violated his Eighth Amendment right, noting that in Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme 1 Whiteside v. State, 2011 Ark. 371 , 383 S.W.3d 859 (Whiteside I). 2 Whiteside v. State, 2013 Ark. 176 , 426 S.W.3d 917 (Whiteside II). 3 Whiteside v. State, 2019 Ark. 349 , 588 S.W.3d 720 (Whiteside III). 2 Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison for a nonhomocide offense.4 Whiteside relies on Hicks v. 2024Specifically, Whiteside claims that instructing the jury it could consider a life-sentence option on the aggravated-robbery charge violated his Eighth Amendment right, noting that in Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme 1 Whiteside v. State, 2011 Ark. 371 , 383 S.W.3d 859 (Whiteside I). 2 Whiteside v. State, 2013 Ark. 176 , 426 S.W.3d 917 (Whiteside II). 3 Whiteside v. State, 2019 Ark. 349 , 588 S.W.3d 720 (Whiteside III). 2 Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison for a nonhomocide offense.4 Whiteside relies on Hicks v. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 479 .1 It also contained a procedural component that “requires a sentencer to consider a juvenile offender’s youth and attendant characteristics before determining that life without parole is a proportionate sentence.” Montgomery, 136 S. Ct. at 734 (citing Miller, 567 U.S. at 483 ). 2020Id. at 479 .1 It also contained a procedural component that “requires a sentencer to consider a juvenile offender’s youth and attendant characteristics before determining that life without parole is a proportionate sentence.” Montgomery, 136 S. Ct. at 734 (citing Miller, 567 U.S. at 483 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
TERRANCE PROCTOR v. WENDY KELLEY
green
2 sentences2020The circuit court denied his petition, and we affirmed in Proctor v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 382 , 562 S.W.3d 837 (Proctor II). 2020The circuit court denied his petition, and we affirmed in Proctor v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 382 , 562 S.W.3d 837 (Proctor II). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Jackson v. Norris
green
2 sentences2018On remand in Jackson v. Norris , 5 we rejected the State's argument that the Eighth Amendment violation could be cured by severing the capital-murder statute, Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-10-101(c) (Repl. 1997), to provide for a sentence of life with parole. 2013 Ark. 175 , 426 S.W.3d 906 . 2018On remand in Jackson v. Norris , 5 we rejected the State's argument that the Eighth Amendment violation could be cured by severing the capital-murder statute, Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-10-101(c) (Repl. 1997), to provide for a sentence of life with parole. 2013 Ark. 175 , 426 S.W.3d 906 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Graham v. Florida
green
2 sentences2018Furthermore, while acknowledging that the Eighth Amendment does not require the adoption of any specific penological theory, the Graham Court nonetheless considered the purpose and effect of a sanction to be relevant in a court's Eighth Amendment analysis, because a sentence lacking a "legitimate" penological purpose is by definition "disproportionate." 560 U.S. at 70 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 . 2018Furthermore, while acknowledging that the Eighth Amendment does not require the adoption of any specific penological theory, the Graham Court nonetheless considered the purpose and effect of a sanction to be relevant in a court's Eighth Amendment analysis, because a sentence lacking a "legitimate" penological purpose is by definition "disproportionate." 560 U.S. at 70 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Grover Henderson v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
green
2 sentences2008In Henderson v. Norris, 258 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2001), the federal appeals court disagreed, finding that this did constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. 2008In Henderson v. Norris, 258 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2001), the federal appeals court disagreed, finding that this did constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Anderson v. State
green
2 sentences2006In Anderson, supra, this court held that where confusing jury forms lead jury members “to disregard any consideration of mitigating circumstances,” the error is not harmless. 357 Ark. at 222 , 163 S.W.3d at 359 ; see also Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225 (2000) (holding that an Eighth Amendment violation does not exist where there is only a slight possibility that the jury considered itself precluded from considering mitigating evidence, but there must be a showing that there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury felt so restrained). 2006In Anderson, supra, this court held that where confusing jury forms lead jury members “to disregard any consideration of mitigating circumstances,” the error is not harmless. 357 Ark. at 222 , 163 S.W.3d at 359 ; see also Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225 (2000) (holding that an Eighth Amendment violation does not exist where there is only a slight possibility that the jury considered itself precluded from considering mitigating evidence, but there must be a showing that there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury felt so restrained). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Mahan v. Plymouth County House of Corrections
green
1 sentence2005Mahan v. Plymouth County House of Corrections, 64 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1995); Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County, 390 F.3d 890 (6th Cir. 2004); Johnson v. Busby, 953 F.2d 349 (8th Cir. 1991); Hunt v. Uphoff, 1999 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 1999). 1 Not every ache and pain or medically recognized condition supports a claim of Eighth Amendment violation and the claim must involve a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmate. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Abdul Hakim Jamal Nasir Shabazz, A/K/A Owen X. Denson v. K.C. Barnauskas, Abdul Hakim Jamal Nasir Shabazz, A/K/A Owen X. Denson v. R.G. Williams
green
2 sentences2005In Shabazz v. Barnauskas, 790 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam), the prisoner filed an Eighth Amendment claim alleging that the prison’s policy that forces him to shave his beard has resulted in his developing sensitive skin. 2005In Shabazz v. Barnauskas, 790 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam), the prisoner filed an Eighth Amendment claim alleging that the prison’s policy that forces him to shave his beard has resulted in his developing sensitive skin. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Johnson v. Busby
green
1 sentence2005Mahan v. Plymouth County House of Corrections, 64 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1995); Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County, 390 F.3d 890 (6th Cir. 2004); Johnson v. Busby, 953 F.2d 349 (8th Cir. 1991); Hunt v. Uphoff, 1999 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 1999). 1 Not every ache and pain or medically recognized condition supports a claim of Eighth Amendment violation and the claim must involve a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmate. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Roberson v. Goodman
green
1 sentence2005Roberson v. Goodman, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (2003). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Tjymas Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County
green
1 sentence2005Mahan v. Plymouth County House of Corrections, 64 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1995); Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County, 390 F.3d 890 (6th Cir. 2004); Johnson v. Busby, 953 F.2d 349 (8th Cir. 1991); Hunt v. Uphoff, 1999 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 1999). 1 Not every ache and pain or medically recognized condition supports a claim of Eighth Amendment violation and the claim must involve a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmate. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hudson v. McMillian
green
2 sentences2002In Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 , 5 (1992), the Court elaborated on this standard as follows: In Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986), the principal question before us was what legal standard should govern the Eighth Amendment claim of an inmate shot by a guard during a prison riot. 2002In Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 , 5 (1992), the Court elaborated on this standard as follows: In Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986), the principal question before us was what legal standard should govern the Eighth Amendment claim of an inmate shot by a guard during a prison riot. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ingraham v. Wright
green
2 sentences2002We based our answer on the settled rule that "`the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.'" Id., at 319 (quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 , 670 (1977)) (internal quotation omitted). 2002We based our answer on the settled rule that "`the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.'" Id., at 319 (quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 , 670 (1977)) (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Tuilaepa v. California
green
2 sentences1996Regarding appellant's Eighth Amendment claim, the United States Supreme Court has held that "[a] capital sentencer need not be instructed how to weigh any particular fact in the capital sentencing decision." Tuilaepa v. California, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 2630, 2638 , 129 L.Ed.2d 750 (1994). 1996Regarding appellant's Eighth Amendment claim, the United States Supreme Court has held that "[a] capital sentencer need not be instructed how to weigh any particular fact in the capital sentencing decision." Tuilaepa v. California, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 2630, 2638 , 129 L.Ed.2d 750 (1994). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.