Matches in DBpedia 2015-10 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Glossip_v._Gross> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 89 of
89
with 100 triples per page.
- Glossip_v._Gross abstract "Glossip v. Gross is a 2015 United States Supreme Court case that ruled executions carried out by a three-drug protocol of midazolam, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The petitioners argued that the midazolam, intended to be used as sedative, would not render them unable to feel the pain of the other two drugs. The proceeding was initially titled Warner v. Gross, but was renamed after lead plaintiff Charles Warner was executed while awaiting consideration of his case.On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners in a 5–4 decision, saying they had "failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the use of midazolam violates the Eighth Amendment." Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court, in which John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined."Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent, in which Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan joined. Sotomayor stated that "under the Court’s new rule, it would not matter whether the State intended to use midazolam, or instead to have petitioners drawn and quartered, slowly tortured to death, or actually burned at the stake: because petitioners failed to prove the availability of sodium thiopental or pentobarbital, the State could execute them using whatever means it designateBreyer, joined by Ginsburg, filed a separate dissent, stating, "I believe it highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment. At the very least, the Court should call for full briefing on the basic question". In response, Scalia and Thomas each filed separate concurring opinions as rebuttals to Breyer. Scalia stated that "The Framers of our Constitution disagreed bitterly on the matter [of capital punishment]. For that reason, they handled it the same way they handled many other controversialissues: they left it to the People to decide. By arrogating to himself the power to overturn that decision, Justice Breyer does not just reject the death penalty, he rejects the Enlightenment". Thomas wrote that "the best solution is for the Court to stop making up Eighth Amendment claims in its ceaseless quest to end the death penalty through undemocratic means".".
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageExternalLink deliverdocument.asp?citeid=448748.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageExternalLink 14-7955_aplc.pdf.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageID "46563012".
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageLength "5866".
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageOutDegree "28".
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageRevisionID "681425186".
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Anthony_Kennedy.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Antonin_Scalia.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Baze_v._Rees.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Capital_punishment.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Category:2015_in_United_States_case_law.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Category:Capital_punishment_in_Oklahoma.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Category:Cruel_and_Unusual_Punishment_Clause_and_death_penalty_case_law.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Category:Lethal_injection.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Category:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Category:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Clarence_Thomas.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Cruel_and_unusual_punishment.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Death_penalty.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Elena_Kagan.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Enforcement_Act_of_1871_(third_act).
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Execution_of_Clayton_Lockett.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Execution_of_Joseph_Wood.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink John_Roberts.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Midazolam.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Pancuronium_bromide.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Potassium_chloride.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Roswell_Lee_Evans.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Samuel_Alito.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Sonia_Sotomayor.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Standard_of_review.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Stephen_Breyer.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLink Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLinkText "5-4 ruling".
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLinkText "Glossip v. Gross".
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageWikiLinkText "Warner v. Gross".
- Glossip_v._Gross arguedate "--04-29".
- Glossip_v._Gross argueyear "2015".
- Glossip_v._Gross concurrence "Scalia".
- Glossip_v._Gross concurrence "Thomas".
- Glossip_v._Gross decidedate "--06-29".
- Glossip_v._Gross decideyear "2015".
- Glossip_v._Gross dissent "Breyer".
- Glossip_v._Gross dissent "Sotomayor".
- Glossip_v._Gross docket "14".
- Glossip_v._Gross fullname "Richard E. Glossip, et al. v. Kevin J. Gross, et al.".
- Glossip_v._Gross hasPhotoCollection Glossip_v._Gross.
- Glossip_v._Gross holding "Petitioners are not entitled to a preliminary injunction to stay theirs executions, because they have failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the use of midazolam violates the Eighth Amendment. Petitioners have the burden of proof that a method of execution involves any risk of harm which is substantial when compared to a known and available alternative method. The District Court factual findings are reviewed under the deferential “clear error” standard.".
- Glossip_v._Gross joinconcurrence "Scalia".
- Glossip_v._Gross joinconcurrence "Thomas".
- Glossip_v._Gross joindissent "Ginsburg".
- Glossip_v._Gross joindissent "Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan".
- Glossip_v._Gross joinmajority "Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas".
- Glossip_v._Gross lawsapplied "42".
- Glossip_v._Gross litigants "Glossip v. Gross".
- Glossip_v._Gross majority "Alito".
- Glossip_v._Gross opinionannouncement 14-7955_aplc.pdf.
- Glossip_v._Gross prior "25920.0".
- Glossip_v._Gross scotus "2010".
- Glossip_v._Gross uspage "___".
- Glossip_v._Gross usvol "576".
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageUsesTemplate Template:Infobox_SCOTUS_case.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageUsesTemplate Template:Reflist.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageUsesTemplate Template:SCOTUS-stub.
- Glossip_v._Gross wikiPageUsesTemplate Template:Wikisource.
- Glossip_v._Gross subject Category:2015_in_United_States_case_law.
- Glossip_v._Gross subject Category:Capital_punishment_in_Oklahoma.
- Glossip_v._Gross subject Category:Cruel_and_Unusual_Punishment_Clause_and_death_penalty_case_law.
- Glossip_v._Gross subject Category:Lethal_injection.
- Glossip_v._Gross subject Category:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases.
- Glossip_v._Gross subject Category:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court.
- Glossip_v._Gross type Case.
- Glossip_v._Gross type LegalCase.
- Glossip_v._Gross type SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase.
- Glossip_v._Gross type UnitOfWork.
- Glossip_v._Gross type Situation.
- Glossip_v._Gross type Thing.
- Glossip_v._Gross type Q2334719.
- Glossip_v._Gross comment "Glossip v. Gross is a 2015 United States Supreme Court case that ruled executions carried out by a three-drug protocol of midazolam, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The petitioners argued that the midazolam, intended to be used as sedative, would not render them unable to feel the pain of the other two drugs. The proceeding was initially titled Warner v.".
- Glossip_v._Gross label "Glossip v. Gross".
- Glossip_v._Gross sameAs m.0134_6z6.
- Glossip_v._Gross sameAs Q19885296.
- Glossip_v._Gross sameAs Q19885296.
- Glossip_v._Gross wasDerivedFrom Glossip_v._Gross?oldid=681425186.
- Glossip_v._Gross isPrimaryTopicOf Glossip_v._Gross.
- Glossip_v._Gross name "Richard E. Glossip, et al. v. Kevin J. Gross, et al.".