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.
6 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Graham v. Floridagreen2 sentences2011One "prohibits the imposition of inherently barbaric punishments under all circumstances." Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. ___ , ___, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2021 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). 2011One "prohibits the imposition of inherently barbaric punishments under all circumstances." Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. ___ , ___, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2021 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Benard McKinley v. Kim Butler
green
2 sentences2020The court stated that while defendant had made claims about the constitutionality of his sentence in state court, he “had failed to argue to the state courts on direct appeal that his prison sentence violated the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment, which the Supreme Court has made applicable to the states by interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 910 . 2020The court stated that while defendant had made claims about the constitutionality of his sentence in state court, he “had failed to argue to the state courts on direct appeal that his prison sentence violated the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment, which the Supreme Court has made applicable to the states by interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 910 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
United States v. Bajakajian
green
2 sentences2018Until that case, however, the Court had not "articulated *1184 a standard for determining whether a punitive forfeiture is constitutionally excessive." Bajakajian , 524 U.S. at 334 , 118 S.Ct. 2028 . ¶ 17 To fill that analytical void, the Court borrowed from its own case law on the cruel and unusual punishments clause. 2018Until that case, however, the Court had not "articulated *1184 a standard for determining whether a punitive forfeiture is constitutionally excessive." Bajakajian , 524 U.S. at 334 , 118 S.Ct. 2028 . ¶ 17 To fill that analytical void, the Court borrowed from its own case law on the cruel and unusual punishments clause. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
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.