13 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Alabamagreen2 sentences2025See Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 474 ; 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2466 ; 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 ; 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 2026; 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), as modified (July 6, 2010). 2025See Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 474 ; 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2466 ; 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 ; 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 2026; 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), as modified (July 6, 2010). | 1 | 1 |
City of Grants Pass v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2025See 34 U.S.C.A. § 20927 (a). 4 Eighth Amendment Claim The threshold question for D.D.’s Eighth Amendment claim is whether the Act’s registration requirement is “punishment.” “The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause focuses on . . . what method or kind of punishment a government may impose after a criminal conviction.” City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520, 542 ; 144 S.Ct. 2202 , 2216; 219 L.Ed.2d 941 (2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Martez Brown v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2016Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675, 680 (Fla.2015) (defendant sentenced for multiple offenses; ”[T]he specific sentence that a juvenile nonhomicide offender receives for committing a given offense is not dispositive as to whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated.”); see also Casiano v. Comm’r of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 , 115 A.3d 1031 , 1045-47 (2015), cert. denied sub nom., Semple v. Casiano, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1364 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (focus of Graham and Miller is "not on the label of a ‘life sentence’ ” but rather whether a juvenile offender will be impr 2016Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675, 680 (Fla.2015) (defendant sentenced for multiple offenses; ”[T]he specific sentence that a juvenile nonhomicide offender receives for committing a given offense is not dispositive as to whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated.”); see also Casiano v. Comm’r of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 , 115 A.3d 1031 , 1045-47 (2015), cert. denied sub nom., Semple v. Casiano, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1364 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (focus of Graham and Miller is "not on the label of a ‘life sentence’ ” but rather whether a juvenile offender will be impr | 1 | 1 |
Jacob Fuller v.State of Indianagreen2 sentences2016Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675, 680 (Fla.2015) (defendant sentenced for multiple offenses; ”[T]he specific sentence that a juvenile nonhomicide offender receives for committing a given offense is not dispositive as to whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated.”); see also Casiano v. Comm’r of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 , 115 A.3d 1031 , 1045-47 (2015), cert. denied sub nom., Semple v. Casiano, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1364 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (focus of Graham and Miller is "not on the label of a ‘life sentence’ ” but rather whether a juvenile offender will be impr 2016Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675, 680 (Fla.2015) (defendant sentenced for multiple offenses; ”[T]he specific sentence that a juvenile nonhomicide offender receives for committing a given offense is not dispositive as to whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated.”); see also Casiano v. Comm’r of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 , 115 A.3d 1031 , 1045-47 (2015), cert. denied sub nom., Semple v. Casiano, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1364 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (focus of Graham and Miller is "not on the label of a ‘life sentence’ ” but rather whether a juvenile offender will be impr | 1 | 1 |
Initiative v. King Cnty.green2 sentences2016Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675, 680 (Fla.2015) (defendant sentenced for multiple offenses; ”[T]he specific sentence that a juvenile nonhomicide offender receives for committing a given offense is not dispositive as to whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated.”); see also Casiano v. Comm’r of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 , 115 A.3d 1031 , 1045-47 (2015), cert. denied sub nom., Semple v. Casiano, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1364 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (focus of Graham and Miller is "not on the label of a ‘life sentence’ ” but rather whether a juvenile offender will be impr 2016Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675, 680 (Fla.2015) (defendant sentenced for multiple offenses; ”[T]he specific sentence that a juvenile nonhomicide offender receives for committing a given offense is not dispositive as to whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated.”); see also Casiano v. Comm’r of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 , 115 A.3d 1031 , 1045-47 (2015), cert. denied sub nom., Semple v. Casiano, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1364 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (focus of Graham and Miller is "not on the label of a ‘life sentence’ ” but rather whether a juvenile offender will be impr | 1 | 1 |
Semple v. Casianogreen2 sentences2016Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675, 680 (Fla.2015) (defendant sentenced for multiple offenses; ”[T]he specific sentence that a juvenile nonhomicide offender receives for committing a given offense is not dispositive as to whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated.”); see also Casiano v. Comm’r of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 , 115 A.3d 1031 , 1045-47 (2015), cert. denied sub nom., Semple v. Casiano, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1364 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (focus of Graham and Miller is "not on the label of a ‘life sentence’ ” but rather whether a juvenile offender will be impr 2016Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675, 680 (Fla.2015) (defendant sentenced for multiple offenses; ”[T]he specific sentence that a juvenile nonhomicide offender receives for committing a given offense is not dispositive as to whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated.”); see also Casiano v. Comm’r of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 , 115 A.3d 1031 , 1045-47 (2015), cert. denied sub nom., Semple v. Casiano, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1364 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (focus of Graham and Miller is "not on the label of a ‘life sentence’ ” but rather whether a juvenile offender will be impr | 1 | 1 |
Wyatt L. Bear Cloudgreen2 sentences2016Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675, 680 (Fla.2015) (defendant sentenced for multiple offenses; ”[T]he specific sentence that a juvenile nonhomicide offender receives for committing a given offense is not dispositive as to whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated.”); see also Casiano v. Comm’r of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 , 115 A.3d 1031 , 1045-47 (2015), cert. denied sub nom., Semple v. Casiano, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1364 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (focus of Graham and Miller is "not on the label of a ‘life sentence’ ” but rather whether a juvenile offender will be impr 2016Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675, 680 (Fla.2015) (defendant sentenced for multiple offenses; ”[T]he specific sentence that a juvenile nonhomicide offender receives for committing a given offense is not dispositive as to whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated.”); see also Casiano v. Comm’r of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 , 115 A.3d 1031 , 1045-47 (2015), cert. denied sub nom., Semple v. Casiano, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1364 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (focus of Graham and Miller is "not on the label of a ‘life sentence’ ” but rather whether a juvenile offender will be impr | 1 | 1 |
Leighdon Henry v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2016Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675, 680 (Fla.2015) (defendant sentenced for multiple offenses; ”[T]he specific sentence that a juvenile nonhomicide offender receives for committing a given offense is not dispositive as to whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated.”); see also Casiano v. Comm’r of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 , 115 A.3d 1031 , 1045-47 (2015), cert. denied sub nom., Semple v. Casiano, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1364 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (focus of Graham and Miller is "not on the label of a ‘life sentence’ ” but rather whether a juvenile offender will be impr 2016Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675, 680 (Fla.2015) (defendant sentenced for multiple offenses; ”[T]he specific sentence that a juvenile nonhomicide offender receives for committing a given offense is not dispositive as to whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated.”); see also Casiano v. Comm’r of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 , 115 A.3d 1031 , 1045-47 (2015), cert. denied sub nom., Semple v. Casiano, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1364 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (focus of Graham and Miller is "not on the label of a ‘life sentence’ ” but rather whether a juvenile offender will be impr | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2011State v. Moore, 256 Neb. 553 , 591 N.W.2d 86, 93 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (collecting cases). 2011State v. Moore, 256 Neb. 553 , 591 N.W.2d 86, 93 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (collecting cases). | 1 | 1 |
Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. Arkansasgreen2 sentences2009See Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 155 , 110 S.Ct. at 1723 (“Our threshold inquiry into standing in no way depends on the merits of the [petitioner’s] contention that a particular conduct is illegal, and we *849 thus put aside for now Whitmore’s Eighth Amendment challenge ... .”)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2009See Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 155 , 110 S.Ct. at 1723 (“Our threshold inquiry into standing in no way depends on the merits of the [petitioner’s] contention that a particular conduct is illegal, and we *849 thus put aside for now Whitmore’s Eighth Amendment challenge ... .”)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Roper v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2007In considering defendant's argument, we must address the question in the context of the Eighth Amendment analysis recently refined by the United States Supreme Court in the watershed decisions of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002)(exempting mentally retarded persons from capital punishment) and Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed. 1 (2005) (exempting from capital punishment all defendants under the age of 18 years at the time of commission of a capital crime). 2007In considering defendant's argument, we must address the question in the context of the Eighth Amendment analysis recently refined by the United States Supreme Court in the watershed decisions of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002)(exempting mentally retarded persons from capital punishment) and Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed. 1 (2005) (exempting from capital punishment all defendants under the age of 18 years at the time of commission of a capital crime). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. California
green
2 sentences2007Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 , 82 S.Ct. 1417 , 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962). 2007Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 , 82 S.Ct. 1417 , 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962). | 4 | 1999–2007 |
Graham v. Florida
green
2 sentences2025See Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 474 ; 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2466 ; 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 ; 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 2026; 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), as modified (July 6, 2010). 2025See Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 474 ; 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2466 ; 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 ; 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 2026; 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), as modified (July 6, 2010). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Ingraham v. Wright
green
2 sentences2025The Eighth Amendment “limits the kinds of punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes.” Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 667 ; 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1410 ; 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977). 2025The Eighth Amendment “limits the kinds of punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes.” Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 667 ; 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1410 ; 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2022R.S. 15:574.4(D).” 7 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. 2022R.S. 15:574.4(D).” 7 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Barrett
green
2 sentences2022App. 2 Cir. 4/11/18), 247 So. 3d 164 , writ denied, 18-0744 (La. 2/18/19), 265 So. 3d 770 , this Court stated that for an Eighth Amendment violation under Miller, supra, “the appropriate remedy for the defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment is to modify the life sentence to make the defendant eligible for parole consideration under the criteria set forth in La. 2022App. 2 Cir. 4/11/18), 247 So. 3d 164 , writ denied, 18-0744 (La. 2/18/19), 265 So. 3d 770 , this Court stated that for an Eighth Amendment violation under Miller, supra, “the appropriate remedy for the defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment is to modify the life sentence to make the defendant eligible for parole consideration under the criteria set forth in La. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Wilson
neutral
2 sentences2022App. 2 Cir. 4/11/18), 247 So. 3d 164 , writ denied, 18-0744 (La. 2/18/19), 265 So. 3d 770 , this Court stated that for an Eighth Amendment violation under Miller, supra, “the appropriate remedy for the defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment is to modify the life sentence to make the defendant eligible for parole consideration under the criteria set forth in La. 2022App. 2 Cir. 4/11/18), 247 So. 3d 164 , writ denied, 18-0744 (La. 2/18/19), 265 So. 3d 770 , this Court stated that for an Eighth Amendment violation under Miller, supra, “the appropriate remedy for the defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment is to modify the life sentence to make the defendant eligible for parole consideration under the criteria set forth in La. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re Disbarment of Wechsler
green
2 sentences2011State v. Moore, 256 Neb. 553 , 591 N.W.2d 86, 93 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (collecting cases). 2011State v. Moore, 256 Neb. 553 , 591 N.W.2d 86, 93 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (collecting cases). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lee v. United States
green
2 sentences2011State v. Moore, 256 Neb. 553 , 591 N.W.2d 86, 93 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (collecting cases). 2011State v. Moore, 256 Neb. 553 , 591 N.W.2d 86, 93 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (collecting cases). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Knight v. Florida
green
2 sentences2011State v. Moore, 256 Neb. 553 , 591 N.W.2d 86, 93 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (collecting cases). 2011State v. Moore, 256 Neb. 553 , 591 N.W.2d 86, 93 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (collecting cases). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Atkins v. Virginia
green
2 sentences2007In considering defendant's argument, we must address the question in the context of the Eighth Amendment analysis recently refined by the United States Supreme Court in the watershed decisions of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002)(exempting mentally retarded persons from capital punishment) and Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed. 1 (2005) (exempting from capital punishment all defendants under the age of 18 years at the time of commission of a capital crime). 2007In considering defendant's argument, we must address the question in the context of the Eighth Amendment analysis recently refined by the United States Supreme Court in the watershed decisions of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002)(exempting mentally retarded persons from capital punishment) and Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 , 125 S.Ct. 1183 , 161 L.Ed. 1 (2005) (exempting from capital punishment all defendants under the age of 18 years at the time of commission of a capital crime). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Gregg v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2007This Eighth Amendment framework was further defined in Gregg v. Georgia , which held that a punishment is excessive and *780 unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment if it (1) makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more that the purposeful and needless imposition of pain and suffering; or (2) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. 428 U.S. 153 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (affirming the death sentence for first-degree murder). 2007This Eighth Amendment framework was further defined in Gregg v. Georgia , which held that a punishment is excessive and *780 unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment if it (1) makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more that the purposeful and needless imposition of pain and suffering; or (2) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. 428 U.S. 153 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (affirming the death sentence for first-degree murder). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Green v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1998He cites Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 , 99 S.Ct. 2150 , 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979). 1998He cites Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 , 99 S.Ct. 2150 , 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Penry v. Lynaugh
red
2 sentences1996In Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a defendant who had an IQ of between 50 and 63, which indicated mild to moderate retardation. 1996In Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a defendant who had an IQ of between 50 and 63, which indicated mild to moderate retardation. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust
green
1 sentence1987One of the issues raised by Watson’s application is essentially the same that the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review in Lowenfield : “Whether the sentencing scheme by which petitioner faces death, based on a sole statutory aggravating circumstance that merely repeats an element of the crime, violates the Eighth Amendment requirement that sentencer discretion be directed and limited so as to minimize the risk of arbitrary and capricious execution?” Id. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.