Citation network
Hutto Vs. Finney
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 1978
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 678 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
U.S. 678 (1978) Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
Holt v. SarverSearch
-
no furniture other than a source of water and a toilet that could only be flushed from outside the cell. Holt v. SarverSearch
-
was ordered to move as rapidly as funds became available. Ibid. After this order was affirmed on appeal, Holt v. SarverSearch
-
noted that sanctions, as well as an award of costs and attorney's fees, would be imposed if violations occurred. Holt v. HuttoSearch
-
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision to withdraw its supervisory jurisdiction, Finney v. ArkansasSearch
-
U. S. 97 , 429 U. S. 102 . It prohibits penalties that are grossly disproportionate to the offense, Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
supra at 429 U. S. 102 , quoting Jackson v. BishopSearch
-
s sentence might be completely unobjectionable, and well within the authority of the prison administrator. Cf. Meachum v. FanowSearch
-
orders directly to a State, federal courts could enjoin state officials in their official capacities. And in Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
requires application of that principle. In exercising their prospective powers under Ex parte Young and Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
ed.). Civil contempt proceedings may yield a conditional jail term or fine. United States v. PageSearch
-
Gompers v. BucksSearch
-
As this Court made clear in Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSearch
-
Of course, the 11th Amendment is not a bar to the awarding of counsel fees against state governments. Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSearch
-
The Attorney General does not quarrel with the rule established in Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSearch
-
retroactive liability on the States in the absence of an extraordinarily explicit statutory mandate. See Employees v. MissouriSearch
-
Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
immunity. The practice of awarding costs against the States goes back to 1849 in this Court. See Missouri v. IowaSearch
-
Page 437 U. S. 696 In Fairmont Creamery Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Sprague v. TiconicSearch
-
U. S. 167 , are routinely taxed today, and have been awarded since 1278. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. WildernessSearch
-
This case began as Holt v. SarverSearch
-
F.Supp. 825 (ED Ark. 1969) ( Holt I ). The two earlier cases were Talley v. StephensSearch
-
F.Supp. 683 (ED Ark.1965), and Jackson v. BishopSearch
-
The administrators of Arkansas' prison system evidently tried to operate their prisons at a profit. See Talley v. StephensSearch
-
sometimes required to run to and from the fields, with a guard in an automobile or on horseback driving them on. Holt v. HuttoSearch
-
Inmates were lashed with a wooden-handled leather strap five feet long and four inches wide. Talley v. StephensSearch
-
to do so, some inmates were apparently whipped for minor offenses until their skin was bloody and bruised. Jackson v. BishopSearch
-
hand-cranked device, was used to administer electrical shocks to various sensitive parts of an inmate's body. Jackson v. BishopSearch
-
not turn off their TV. Ibid. Another trusty beat an inmate so badly the victim required partial dentures. Talley v. StephensSearch
-
that the Constitution does not require that every aspect of prison discipline serve a rehabilitative purpose. Novak v. BetoSearch
-
Nadeau v. HelgemoeSearch
-
As we explained in Milliken v. BradleySearch
-
Pipeline Service Co. v. WildernessSearch
-
by delaying or disrupting the litigation or by hampering enforcement of a court order. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. WildernessSearch
-
Straub v. VaismanSearch
-
of court, and makes the prevailing party whole for expenses caused by his opponent's obstinacy. Cf. First Nat. Bank v. DunhamSearch
-
CA8 1973). Of course, fees can also be awarded as part of a civil contempt penalty. See, e.g., Toledo Scale Co. v. ComputingSearch
-
Signal Delivery Service, Inc. v. HighwaySearch
-
million to help defray the costs of desegregating the Detroit school system. Milliken v. BradleySearch
-
for civil contempt, which also compensates a private party for the consequences of a contemnor's disobedience. Gompers v. BucksSearch
-
of the award or in giving the State time to adjust its budget before paying the full amount of the fee. Cf. Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
In Milliken v. BradleySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hutto v. FinneySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial