YOUNG ET UX.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Linroy Bottoson v. State, 813 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 2002)
  …lief. It is so ordered. WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . Huff v. State, 622 So. 2d 982 (Fla.1993). . Bottoson points out that the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Atkins v. Virginia, 533 U.S. 976, 122 S.Ct. 24, 150 L.Ed.2d 805 (2001), to decide whether the execution of mentally retarded individuals convicted of capital crimes violates the Eighth Amendment. In Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), the Court r…
• Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002)
  …gravity of the concerns expressed by the dissenters, and in light of the dramatic shift in the state legislative landscape that has occurred in the past 13 years, we granted certiorari to revisit the issue that we first addressed in the Penry case. 533 U. S. 976 (2001). [*311] II The Eighth Amendment succinctly prohibits “[e]xcessive” sanctions. It provides: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” In Weems v. United States, 217 U. S.…
• Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002)
  …53 (CA2 1998). The Court of Appeals held that petitioner had failed to meet his burden because his allegations were “insufficient as a matter of law to raise an inference of discrimination.” 5 Fed. Appx. 63, 65 (CA2 2001). We granted certiorari, 533 U. S. 976 (2001), to resolve a split among the Courts [*510] of Appeals concerning the proper pleading standard for employment discrimination cases,2 and now reverse. r — i HH Applying Circuit precedent, the Court of Appeals required petitioner to plead a p…