PUYALLUP TRIBE

v.

DEPARTMENT OF GAME OF WASHINGTON ET AL.; POWELL V. TEXAS; LEVY, ADMINISTRATRIX V. LOUISIANA THROUGH THE CHARITY HOSPITAL OF LOUISIANA AT NEW ORLEANS BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS ET AL.; GLONA V. AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INSURANCE CO. ET AL.; WILLS V. UNITED STATES; CARCERANO V. GLADDEN, WARDEN; WITHERSPOON V. ILLINOIS ET AL.; PICKENS V. OLIVER, WARDEN; FRANZEN V. TOWNSHIP OF ELK ET AL., IN RE WHITESIDE, JONES V. LOUISIANA; ROBINSON V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, CITY OF CLEVELAND

Citator

Cited By

• Williams v. NEW England Mut. Life Ins. Co., 419 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
  …emical, physiological or psychological sense, or whether it represents one peculiar manifestation in some individuals of underlying psychiatric disorders. Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 522, 88 S.Ct. 2145, 2149, 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968), reh. denied, 393 U.S. 898, 89 S.Ct. 65, 21 L.Ed.2d 185 (1968) (footnotes omitted; emphasis in original). The opinion persuasively points out that it is really unclear whether alcoholism is a disease. This perception is buttressed by the disparate views attested to at trial b…
• United States v. Moore, 486 F.2d 1139 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
  …ppellant’s conviction, under Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758, rehearing denied, 371 U.S. 905, 83 S.Ct. 202, 9 L.Ed.2d 166 (1962), and Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 88 S.Ct. 2145, 20 L.Ed.2d 1254, rehearing denied, 393 U.S. 898, 89 S.Ct. 65, 21 L.Ed.2d 185 (1968). 5. Appellant concludes (Br. 102): . [T]he compulsive acts inherent in a disease condition are no more blameworthy than having the disease itself. It is as barbarous to punish the one as the other. * * * While it…
• Radcliff v. Park Anderson, 509 F.2d 1093 (10th Cir. 1974)
  …of disqualifying prospective jurors because they have certain views as to capital punishment in proceedings involving the possible imposition of such punishment, Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), reh. den. 393 U.S. 898, 89 S.Ct. 67, 21 L.Ed.2d 186. The rules announced in these and many like cases were applied retroactively because they were found to be basic deprivation of rights casting serious doubts upon the reliability of the previous judicial determinations —…