Kerala HC: Applications under the Muslim Women’s Divorce Act Have a 3-Year Limitation Period || Supreme Court: Property Transferred Before Filing a Suit Cannot be Attached under Order 38 Rule 5 || Supreme Court: No Review or Appeal is Maintainable Against an Order Appointing an Arbitrator || SC: Terminated Contract is Not a Corporate Debtor’s Asset and a Moratorium Cannot Revive it || SC: Cheque Dishonour Complaints Must be Filed at the Payee’s Home Branch under S.142(2)(A) || Supreme Court: Bail Cannot be Granted Solely on Parity; Accused’s Specific Role Must be Assessed || Kerala HC Upholds Life Terms For Five, Acquits Two in Renjith Johnson Murder, Says TIP Not Needed || Kerala HC Orders Emergency Electric Fencing at Tribal School to Address Rising Wildlife Conflict || Madras HC: Arbitrator Can’t Pierce Corporate Veil to Bind Non-Signatory and Partly Sets Aside Award || Calcutta HC: Post-Award Claim For Municipal Tax Reimbursement is Not Maintainable under Section 9

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 :