Rummel v. Estelle
Three-time Loser, Cruel And Unusual?, The Nature Of Proportionality, Impact, Legal Malpractice
William James Rummel
Estelle, Corrections Director for the State of Texas
That Article 63 of the Penal Code of the state of Texas, which mandated that a person convicted of three felonies would receive a life sentence as a recidivist criminal, violated Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Scott J. Atlas
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Douglas M. Becker
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John Paul Stevens
Date of Decision
18 March 1980
Upheld the state of Texas and affirmed the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, finding that Article 63 of the Texas Penal Code did not violate the constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment of criminals.
Established that a severe penalty for repeat offenders was not a violation of the protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
- Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 367 (1910).
- Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616 (1912).
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983).
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 294 (1991).
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 7. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing, 1998.
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Guide to the Supreme Court of the United States. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1997.
- Salyer v. Tulare - Significance
- Rosario v. Rockefeller - States' Rights, Party Raiding, Groups' Rights
- Rummel v. Estelle - Three-time Loser
- Rummel v. Estelle - Cruel And Unusual?
- Rummel v. Estelle - The Nature Of Proportionality
- Rummel v. Estelle - Impact
- Rummel v. Estelle - Legal Malpractice
- Other Free Encyclopedias