Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Argument: Oral argument: Reargument: Reargument: Opinion announcement: Opinion announcement: Holding; The cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment did not apply to corporal punishment as a disciplinary practice in public schools, and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not require notice or a hearing prior to imposition of such punishment, as the state's ...
Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held, in a 5–3 decision, that student speech in a school-sponsored student newspaper at a public high school could be censored by school officials without a violation of First Amendment rights if the school's actions were "reasonably related" to a ...
In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporal punishment against school children does not violate the federal Constitution. Justices ruled 5-4 in the Ingraham v.Wright decision that ...
The execution of mentally retarded defendants violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. 8th 2005 Roper v. Simmons: In a ruling that followed Wainwright (in assessing the nature of cruel and unusual punishments), children may not be given the death penalty 8th, 14th 2010 Graham v. Florida
Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments.
Business Insider analyzed a sample of nearly 1,500 federal Eighth Amendment lawsuits — including every appeals court case with an opinion we could locate filed from 2018 to 2022 and citing the ...
The Eighth Amendment was adopted, as part of the Bill of Rights, in 1791.It is almost identical to a provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, in which Parliament declared, "as their ancestors in like cases have usually done ... that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case concerned with the scope of the Eighth Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Mr. Helm, who had written a check from a fictitious account and had reached his seventh nonviolent felony conviction since 1964, received a mandatory sentence, under South Dakota ...