Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court has held that the Excessive Fines Clause prohibits fines that are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law". The Court struck down a fine as excessive for the first time in United States v. Bajakajian (1998). Under the Excessive Bail Clause, the Supreme Court has held that the ...
This page was last edited on 27 November 2011, at 03:27 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
To a section: This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section: This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section
While Furman confirmed the earlier incorporation of the 8th Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause in Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667 (1962) Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Tool Group incorporated the Excessive Fines clause. The Court later seemed to back away from this holding.
United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), is a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that asset forfeiture is unconstitutional when it is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense", citing the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment. [1]
Under the “Excessive Bail Clause,” bail should not be higher than that which is necessary to make sure the defendant appears at trial. Timbs v. Indiana applied Excessive Fines Clause to the states
Rooney v. North Dakota, 196 U.S. 319 (1905) — Adoption of private execution over public execution after sentence does not violate the Ex post facto clause. Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U.S. 180 (1915) — Retroactively changing the execution method does not violate the Ex post facto clause. Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974) Loving v.
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime.