Bombay HC: Insolvency Cannot be Used to Evade a Family Court’s Maintenance Order || Kerala HC: Forklifts and Factory Cranes Are Motor Vehicles and Must be Registered under MV Act || Guj HC: Edible Crude Palm Kernel Oil Qualifies for Duty Exemption; End-Use Condition not Applicable || NCLAT Delhi: Advance under Land-Development MoU is not Financial Debt and Cannot Trigger CIRP || NCLAT: NCLT Cannot Change Capital Structure of a Legally Compliant Successful Auction Purchaser || Supreme Court: Endless Investigation and Long Delay in Filing Chargesheet Can Justify Quashing Case || SC: Landowners Accepting Compensation Settlements Cannot Later Claim Statutory Benefits || Supreme Court: Provident Fund Dues Have Priority over a Bank’s Claim under the SARFAESI Act || Supreme Court: Indian Courts Cannot Appoint Arbitrators for Arbitrations Seated Outside India || Madras HC: Police Superintendent not Liable For IO’s Delay In Filing Chargesheet or Closure Report

Glossip et al. v. Gross et al - (29 Jun 2015)

Use of midazolam does not violate Eighth Amendment of Constitution

Criminal

Hearing a petition against the use of midazolam by the State of Oklahoma in carrying out the death penalty, the United States Supreme Court held that the Petitioners had failed to establish that its use would create a demonstrated risk of severe pain. It added, Oklahoma did not have access to alternatives, and the Petitioners themselves had failed to suggest a more appropriate substitute. Midazolam is the first of three drugs used in carrying out executions by lethal injection. It came to be used by State authorities after previous drugs, like sodium thiopental, used to induce a state of unconsciousness in the inmate were prevented from being used in executions.

Tags : DEATH ROW EXECUTION MIDAZOLAM

Share :