O'Neil v. Vermont
Citations
- 144 U.S. 323
- 12 S. Ct. 693
- 36 L. Ed. 450
- 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2082
Syllabus
<p>A complaint, in Vermont; before a justice of the peace, for selling intoxicating liquor without authority, was in the form prescribed by the state statute, which also provided, that, under such form of complaint every distinct act of selling might be proved, and that the court should impose 'a fine for each offence. After a conviction and’ sentence before the justice of the peace, the defendant appealed to the county court, where the case was tried before a jury. The defendant did not take the point, in either court, .that there was any defect or want of fulness in the complaint. The jury found the defendant guilty of 307 offences, as of a second conviction for a like offence. He was fined $6140, being $20 for each offence, and the costs of prosecution, $497.96, and ordered to be committed until the sentence should be complied with, and it was adjudged, that if the fine and costs, and 76 cents, as costs of commitment, aggregating $6638.72, should not be paid before a day . named, he should bé confined at hard labor, in the house of correction, foT 19,914 days, being, under a statute of the State, three days for each dollar of the $6638. The facts of the case were contained in a written admission, and the defendant excepted because the court refused to hold that the facts did not constitute an offence. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of the State, (58 Vermont, 140,) which held .that there was no error. .On a writ of error from this court; Held,,</p> <p>(1) The term of imprisonment was authorized by the statute of Vermont ;</p> <p>(2) It was not assigned in this court, as error, in' the, assignment of . errors or in the brief, that the defendant was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Constitution of the United States;</p> <p>(3) So far as that is a question arising under the constitution of Vermont, it is not within the province of this court;</p> <p>(4) As a Federal question, the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United S
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- arguing the Eighth Amendment prohibits “all punishments which by their excessive length or severity are greatly disproportioned to the offenses charged.”
- quoting, in dictum, a state court’s reasoning that “[t]he mere fact that cumulative punishments may be imposed for distinct offenses in the same prosecution is not material” to the Eighth Amendment inquiry
- severity of defendant's punishment resulted from number of crimes he committed, which does not raise proportionality concerns
- “If [the defendant] has subjected himself to a severe penalty, it is simply because he committed a great many such offences.”
- “[i]f [the defendant] has subjected himself to a severe penalty, it is simply because he committed a great many such offenses”
- severity of defendant’s punishment resulted from number of crimes he committed, which does not raise proportionality concerns
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Blatcheord, Field, Harlan, Brewer
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
161 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court· 1963-03-18· cited 8,419×
- Furman v. GeorgiaSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 5,066×
- Harmelin v. MichiganSupreme Court· 1991-06-27· cited 4,521×
- Solem v. HelmSupreme Court· 1983-06-28· cited 4,242×
- Duncan v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 1968-05-20· cited 3,740×
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court· 1964-06-15· cited 3,675×
- Robinson v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1962-06-25· cited 2,369×
- Enmund v. FloridaSupreme Court· 1982-07-02· cited 2,349×
- Rummel v. EstelleSupreme Court· 1980-03-18· cited 2,234×
- Trop v. DullesSupreme Court· 1958-03-31· cited 2,182×
- Haguer v. Committee for Industrial OrganizationSupreme Court· 1939-06-05· cited 2,178×
- Yakus v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1944-03-27· cited 1,935×
- Tison v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1987-04-21· cited 1,617×
- Close v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado· 2002-05-28· cited 1,325×
- Poe v. UllmanSupreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 1,202×
- Betts v. BradySupreme Court· 1942-06-01· cited 1,154×
- Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.Supreme Court· 1989-06-26· cited 1,060×
- In Re LynchCalifornia Supreme Court· 1972-12-04· cited 852×
- Chambers v. FloridaSupreme Court· 1940-02-12· cited 844×
- Twining v. New JerseySupreme Court· 1908-11-09· cited 773×
Cites
30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Brown v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1827-03-12· cited 822×
- Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing DistrictSupreme Court· 1887-03-07· cited 570×
- Barron Ex Rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of BaltimoreSupreme Court· 1833-02-16· cited 561×
- Thurlow v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 1847-03-18· cited 427×
- Ex Parte WilsonSupreme Court· 1885-04-13· cited 382×
- Gloucester Ferry Co. v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 1885-03-30· cited 339×
- In Re RahrerSupreme Court· 1891-05-25· cited 334×
- Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court· 1888-03-19· cited 290×
- Brown v. HoustonSupreme Court· 1885-05-04· cited 286×
- New Orleans v. New Orleans Water Works Co.Supreme Court· 1891-12-14· cited 153×
- Murray v. CharlestonSupreme Court· 1878-04-18· cited 141×
- Leeper v. TexasSupreme Court· 1891-03-30· cited 117×
- Pervear v. CommonwealthSupreme Court· 1867-04-29· cited 111×
- Arrowsmith v. HarmoningSupreme Court· 1886-05-10· cited 28×
- Hammond v. JohnstonSupreme Court· 1891-12-14· cited 28×
- San Francisco City and County v. ItsellSupreme Court· 1890-01-20· cited 24×
- Butler v. GageSupreme Court· 1891-01-19· cited 22×
- Hale v. AkersSupreme Court· 1889-12-23· cited 17×
- Chapman v. Goodnow's AdministratorSupreme Court· 1887-12-05· cited 16×
- Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson CitySupreme Court· 1891-12-07· cited 16×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.