Search for: "Roper v. Simmons" Results 181 - 200 of 247
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Dec 2017, 5:30 pm by Embajador Microjuris al Día
Por el contrario, las mismas se erigen de espaldas a nuevos e importantes fundamentos científicos y jurídicos reconocidos por la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos en Roper v Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), Graham v Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) y Montgomery v Louisiana, 577 U.S. ___ (2016). [read post]
23 Jun 2009, 10:48 pm
Dist., but that a decision like Roper v. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 1:20 pm
" The two current cases are the predictable result of the 2005 decision Roper v. [read post]
4 May 2009, 2:39 pm
  They thus have been seeking a chance to follow up on the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Roper v. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 8:57 am by Steve Hall
  An extended excerpt:The law is made up of rules and standards.Here is an example of a rule, established by the Supreme Court in Roper v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 5:26 am
Given the dearth of overt consultation of foreign law after some criticized the Court's reasoning in Roper v. [read post]
13 Jan 2016, 3:15 pm by William Weinberg
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held in the case Roper v. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 4:18 pm by Kent Scheidegger
Twice in recent years  the United States Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of JLWOP for murder cases, first in the Roper v Simmons decision in 2005, then in 2010's Graham v Florida decision. [read post]
29 Aug 2007, 12:47 pm
  Following the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in Roper v. [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 8:24 am
Virginia, 2002) and juvenile defendants (Roper v. [read post]
28 Aug 2020, 3:36 am by SHG
The other two are misdemeanors. [2] And there will be plenty of others that disagree with me, I’m sure. [3] 471 U.S. 1 (1985). [4] See Roper v. [read post]
30 Dec 2019, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
The Hughes Supreme Court rejected his argument, explaining that “LWOP is the price juveniles pay for the protection that Roper v. [read post]