O'Dell v. Netherland | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued March 18, 1997 Decided June 19, 1997 | |
Full case name | Joseph Roger O'Dell, III, Petitioner, v. J.D. Netherland, Warden, Mecklenburg Correctional Center, et al., Respondents. |
Docket no. | 96-6867 |
Citations | 521 U.S. 151 ( more ) |
Case history | |
Prior | Convictions and sentences upheld, O'Dell v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 672, 364 S.E.2d 491 (1988); affirmed on rehearing, Record No. 861219 (Va., April 1, 1988); cert. denied, O'Dell v. Virginia, 488 U.S. 871 (1988); rehearing denied, 488 U.S. 977 (1988); habeas corpus denied (Va. Cir., City of Virginia Beach, November 26, 1990); petition for appeal dismissed (Va., April 1, 1991); rehearing denied (Va., June 7, 1991); cert. denied, O'Dell v. Thompson, 502 U.S. 995 (1991); habeas corpus granted in part, denied in part (E.D. Va., September 6, 1994); reversed in part, affirmed in part, O'Dell v. Netherland, 95 F.3d 1214 (4th Cir. 1996); stay granted, 519 U.S. 1049 (1996) (Rehnquist, C.J., in chambers); cert. granted in part, 519 U.S. 1050 (1996). |
Holding | |
Simmons v. South Carolina does not apply retroactively to cases on federal habeas corpus review. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
Dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XIV |
O'Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the rule of Simmons v. South Carolina , that a capital defendant has the right to have their jury informed of their parole ineligibility where their future dangerousness is put at issue, does not apply retroactively to cases on federal habeas corpus review. [1]
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, unanimously ruling that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the regulation of materials distributed via the Internet.
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the scope of Congress's power of enforcement under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation.
Nancy O'Dell is an American television host and entertainment journalist. She served as co-anchor of the syndicated entertainment news show Entertainment Tonight from January 3, 2011, to August 2, 2019.
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously held that a right to assisted suicide in the United States was not protected by the Due Process Clause.
Commandeering is an act of appropriation by the military or police whereby they take possession of the property of a member of the public.
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held individual members of Congress do not automatically have standing to litigate the constitutionality of laws affecting Congress as a whole.
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), was a US Supreme Court case that determined that the US Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment over complaints of discrimination that is rationally based on age.
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 was "narrowly targeted" at "sex-based overgeneralization" and was thus a "valid exercise of [congressional] power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, the Court overruled its decision in Aguilar v. Felton (1985), now finding that it was not a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for a state-sponsored education initiative to allow public school teachers to instruct at religious schools, so long as the material was secular and neutral in nature and no "excessive entanglement" between government and religion was apparent. This case is noteworthy in a broader sense as a sign of evolving judicial standards surrounding the First Amendment, and the changes that have occurred in modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the right to die. It ruled 9–0 that a New York ban on physician-assisted suicide was constitutional, and preventing doctors from assisting their patients, even those terminally ill and/or in great pain, was a legitimate state interest that was well within the authority of the state to regulate. In brief, this decision established that, as a matter of law, there was no constitutional guarantee of a "right to die."
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court set forth procedures for the indefinite civil commitment of prisoners who are convicted of a sex offense and are deemed by the state to be dangerous because of a mental abnormality.
Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that New York City's program that sent public school teachers into parochial schools to provide remedial education to disadvantaged children pursuant to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 necessitated an excessive entanglement of church and state and violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coeur d'Alene Tribe could not maintain an action against the state of Idaho to press its claim to Lake Coeur d'Alene due to the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, notwithstanding the exception recognized in Ex parte Young. The case was an important precedent for aboriginal title in the United States and sovereign immunity in the United States.
New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767 (1998), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that determined that roughly 83% of Ellis Island was part of New Jersey, rather than New York State.
John Robert Moolenaar is an American chemist and politician serving as a U.S. representative from Michigan since 2015, representing the state's 2nd congressional district since 2023. A member of the Republican Party, he served in the Michigan House of Representatives from 2003 to 2008 and the Michigan Senate from 2011 to 2014.
United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning insider trading and breach of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10(b) and 10(b)-5. In an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that an individual may be found liable for violating Rule 10(b)-5 by misappropriating confidential information. The Court also held that the Securities and Exchange Commission did not exceed its rulemaking authority when it adopted Rule 14e-3(a), "which proscribes trading on undisclosed information in the tender offer setting, even in the absence of a duty to disclose".
Lori St John, also known as Lori Urs, is an American advocate against wrongful death penalty decisions. In addition, she is a certified public accountant and author.
Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996's amendments to Title 28, Section 2254 of the United States Code applies to cases filed after the Act's effective date. The amendments "do not apply to pending noncapital cases such as Lindh's."
Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that, where a capital defendant's future dangerousness is at issue, and the only alternative sentence available is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the sentencing jury must be informed that the defendant is ineligible for parole.