Hall v. Florida
E576852
Hall v. Florida is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited states’ ability to impose strict IQ cutoffs when determining intellectual disability in capital cases, thereby refining the application of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on executing individuals with intellectual disabilities.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Hall v. Florida canonical | 4 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T6224989 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Hall v. Florida Context triple: [opinion in Atkins v. Virginia, relatedCase, Hall v. Florida]
-
A.
Proffitt v. Florida
Proffitt v. Florida is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that, alongside Gregg v. Georgia, upheld the constitutionality of guided-discretion capital sentencing schemes under the Eighth Amendment.
-
B.
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly limited Congress’s power to subject non-consenting states to lawsuits in federal court, reinforcing state sovereign immunity.
-
C.
Duncan v. Louisiana
Duncan v. Louisiana is a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in criminal cases applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
D.
Atkins v. Virginia
Atkins v. Virginia is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
-
E.
Stone v. Mississippi
Stone v. Mississippi is an 1880 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state cannot irrevocably surrender its police power, allowing Mississippi to prohibit a previously chartered lottery despite contractual claims.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Hall v. Florida Target entity description: Hall v. Florida is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited states’ ability to impose strict IQ cutoffs when determining intellectual disability in capital cases, thereby refining the application of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on executing individuals with intellectual disabilities.
-
A.
Proffitt v. Florida
Proffitt v. Florida is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that, alongside Gregg v. Georgia, upheld the constitutionality of guided-discretion capital sentencing schemes under the Eighth Amendment.
-
B.
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly limited Congress’s power to subject non-consenting states to lawsuits in federal court, reinforcing state sovereign immunity.
-
C.
Duncan v. Louisiana
Duncan v. Louisiana is a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in criminal cases applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
D.
Atkins v. Virginia
Atkins v. Virginia is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
-
E.
Stone v. Mississippi
Stone v. Mississippi is an 1880 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state cannot irrevocably surrender its police power, allowing Mississippi to prohibit a previously chartered lottery despite contractual claims.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Eighth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ capital punishment case ⓘ |
| appliesTo |
capital sentencing
ⓘ
defendants with possible intellectual disability ⓘ |
| aroseInJurisdiction | Florida ⓘ |
| clarifiesPrecedent | Atkins v. Virginia ⓘ |
| concernsTopic |
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
IQ score cutoffs ⓘ clinical standards for intellectual disability ⓘ cruel and unusual punishments ⓘ death penalty eligibility ⓘ intellectual disability in capital cases ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | U.S. Const. amend. VIII ⓘ |
| decisionType | 5–4 decision ⓘ |
| effectOnLaw | limited state discretion in defining intellectual disability for death penalty purposes ⓘ |
| followsPrecedent | Atkins v. Virginia ⓘ |
| hasCitation |
134 S. Ct. 1986
ⓘ
188 L. Ed. 2d 1007 ⓘ 572 U.S. 701 ⓘ |
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| hasDecisionDate | May 27, 2014 ⓘ |
| hasDissentingJustice |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ |
| hasDissentingOpinionBy | Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ |
| hasDocketNumber | No. 12-10882 ⓘ |
| hasMajorityJustices |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Elena Kagan ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| hasMajorityOpinionBy | Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ |
| hasPetitioner | Freddie Lee Hall ⓘ |
| hasRespondent |
State of Florida
ⓘ
linked to:
Florida
|
| holds |
Courts must consider adaptive functioning evidence when determining intellectual disability for death penalty purposes
ⓘ
States may not use a rigid IQ score cutoff to deny further inquiry into intellectual disability in capital cases ⓘ The Eighth Amendment requires consideration of the standard error of measurement in IQ testing ⓘ |
| interprets | Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments ⓘ |
| originatesFrom | Florida Supreme Court judgment reviewing Freddie Lee Hall’s death sentence ⓘ |
| overrulesOrLimits | strict IQ cutoff rules for intellectual disability in Florida ⓘ |
| prohibits | treating an IQ score of 70 as a strict cutoff barring evidence of intellectual disability ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Atkins v. Virginia
ⓘ
Moore v. Texas ⓘ |
| requires | States to align intellectual disability determinations with prevailing medical standards ⓘ |
| standardAnnounced | IQ scores must be interpreted as a range rather than a fixed number in capital cases ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Hall v. Florida Description of subject: Hall v. Florida is a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited states’ ability to impose strict IQ cutoffs when determining intellectual disability in capital cases, thereby refining the application of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on executing individuals with intellectual disabilities.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.