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.
12 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hallgreen1 sentence2010However, before the proportionality rule will be considered, one must first demonstrate that a fine or penalty, in relation to the illegal act, is “grossly disproportionate.” State v. Hall, 56 S.W.3d 475, 481 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mercergreen2 sentences2010The first capital murder case in which this Court applied the proportionality analysis required by the Missouri legislature was State v. Mercer, 618 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1981). 2010This assistant was directed to "provide the court with whatever extracted information the court desires with respect thereto." Id. *556 The first capital murder case in which this Court applied the proportionality analysis required by the Missouri legislature was State v. Mercer, 618 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Solem v. Helm
red
2 sentences2005In Solem , the Court held that “a court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including (i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for the commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” Solem, 463 U.S. at 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 . 2005In Solem , the Court held that “a court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including (i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for the commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” Solem, 463 U.S. at 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 . | 6 | 1987–2015 |
Harmelin v. Michigan
green
2 sentences2018The first type of challenge is an individualized review that "compar[es] the gravity of the offense and the severity of the sentence." Id. (citing Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 1005, 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) ). 2018The first type of challenge is an individualized review that "compar[es] the gravity of the offense and the severity of the sentence." Id. (citing Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 1005, 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) ). | 2 | 2005–2018 |
Graham v. Florida
green
2 sentences2018The United States Supreme Court classifies its Eighth Amendment precedent into "two general classifications": "challenges to the length of term-of-years sentences given all the circumstances in a particular case ... [and challenges to] the proportionality standard ... [involving] the death penalty." Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 59, 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). 2018The United States Supreme Court classifies its Eighth Amendment precedent into "two general classifications": "challenges to the length of term-of-years sentences given all the circumstances in a particular case ... [and challenges to] the proportionality standard ... [involving] the death penalty." Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 , 59, 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011The trial court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings as to the alcohol and hours-of-operation restrictions. k- Proportionality Test Finally, the businesses argue that even if the government met its evidentiary burden under Renton and Alameda Books , the Act is nevertheless unconstitutional under the proportionality test established by Justice Kennedy’s controlling concurrence in Alameda Books . 13 The proportionality test arose from Justice Kennedy’s concern that the plurality’s analysis in Alameda Books did “not address how speech will fare under the [statute].” 535 U.S. at 449-5 2011The trial court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings as to the alcohol and hours-of-operation restrictions. k- Proportionality Test Finally, the businesses argue that even if the government met its evidentiary burden under Renton and Alameda Books , the Act is nevertheless unconstitutional under the proportionality test established by Justice Kennedy’s controlling concurrence in Alameda Books . 13 The proportionality test arose from Justice Kennedy’s concern that the plurality’s analysis in Alameda Books did “not address how speech will fare under the [statute].” 535 U.S. at 449-5 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ewing v. California
green
2 sentences2005The intraju-risdictional and interjurisdictional analyses in the second and third factors, however, need only be undertaken “in the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross dispropor-tionality.” Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1005 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 23-24 , 123 S.Ct. 1179 , 155 L.Edüd 108 (2003) (plurality opinion). 2005The intraju-risdictional and interjurisdictional analyses in the second and third factors, however, need only be undertaken “in the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross dispropor-tionality.” Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1005 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 23-24 , 123 S.Ct. 1179 , 155 L.Edüd 108 (2003) (plurality opinion). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Laws
green
2 sentences1992State v. Laws, 661 S.W.2d 526 (Mo. banc 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2401 , 81 L.Ed.2d 357 (1984), is not pertinent authority for the proportionality analysis in this case. 1992State v. Laws, 661 S.W.2d 526 (Mo. banc 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2401 , 81 L.Ed.2d 357 (1984), is not pertinent authority for the proportionality analysis in this case. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Carter v. City of Birmingham
green
2 sentences1992State v. Laws, 661 S.W.2d 526 (Mo. banc 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2401 , 81 L.Ed.2d 357 (1984), is not pertinent authority for the proportionality analysis in this case. 1992State v. Laws, 661 S.W.2d 526 (Mo. banc 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 , 104 S.Ct. 2401 , 81 L.Ed.2d 357 (1984), is not pertinent authority for the proportionality analysis in this case. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Bolder
green
2 sentences1985State v. Bolder, 635 S.W.2d 673 (Mo. banc 1982). 1985State v. Bolder, 635 S.W.2d 673 (Mo. banc 1982). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.