WHITMAN AREA IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL ET AL.
v.
RESIDENT ADVISORY BOARD ET AL.; PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY V. RESIDENT ADVISORY BOARD OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL.; REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. RESIDENT ADVISORY BOARD OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL.; AND CITY OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL. V. RESIDENT ADVISORY BOARD OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL.
WHITMAN AREA IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL ET AL.
RESIDENT ADVISORY BOARD ET AL.; PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY V. RESIDENT ADVISORY BOARD OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL.; REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. RESIDENT ADVISORY BOARD OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL.; AND CITY OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL. V. RESIDENT ADVISORY BOARD OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL.
435 U.S. 908
Supreme Court of the United States (1978)
Caution
Cited by 88 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (81 total)
-
Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (U.S. 1990)…ard pressed to conclude that the state court has placed meaningful limitations on the scope of the (F)(6) factor. The Arizona Supreme Court attempted to define the statutory terms in State v. Knapp, 114 Ariz. 531, 562 P. 2d 704 (1977), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 908 (1978). The court there stated: “The words ‘heinous, cruel or depraved’ have meanings that are clear to a person of average intelligence and understanding.” 114 Ariz., at 543, 562 P. 2d, at 716. The court then offered definitions culled from Webst…
-
Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1982)…95 S.Ct. 1680, 44 L.Ed.2d 102 (1975); United States v. City of Parma, 661 F. 2d 562, 576 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1972, 72 L.Ed.2d 441 (1982); Resident Advisory Bd. v. Rizzo, 564 F. 2d 126, 145 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 908, 98 S.Ct. 1457, 55 L.Ed.2d 499 (1978). . See Special Project, The Remedial Process in Institutional Reform Litigation, 78 Colum.L. Rev. 784, 864-66 (1978); Developments in the Law — Section 1983 and Federalism, 90 Harv.L. Rev. 1133, 1247-50 (1977);…
-
Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (U.S. 1990)…r Arizona capital cases, belies that characterization. Prior to Gretzler, the Arizona Supreme Court’s application of the (F)(6) circumstance was based principally on its decision in State v. Knapp, 114 Ariz. 531, 562 P. 2d 704 (1977), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 908 (1978), in which the court recited dictionary definitions of each of the statutory terms. “Heinous” was defined as “hatefully or shockingly evil; grossly bad”; “cruel” was defined as “disposed to inflict pain esp. in a wanton, insensate or vindictiv…
Previewing 3 of 81 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence