Citation network
Rhodes Vs. Chapman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 15, 1981
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. 337 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Rhodes v. ChapmanSearch
-
U.S. 337 (1981) Rhodes v. ChapmanSearch
-
Amendment, which is applicable to the States through Page 452 U. S. 345 the Fourteenth Amendment, Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Ingraham v. WrightSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
supra, at 428 U. S. 173 , or are grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime, Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
of judges. Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
of a given punishment. Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
supra, at 445 U. S. 274 -275, quoting Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
and the sentencing by juries. Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
supra, at 433 U. S. 593 -596. Our conclusion in Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
of pain, nor may they be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime warranting imprisonment. In Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
serious cases, it can result in pain without any penological purpose. 429 U.S. at 429 U. S. 103 . In Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
Cruz v. BetoSearch
-
prisons. Tr. of Oral Arg. 5-6. Thus, petitioners have an interest in resuming double celling at SOCF. See Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
In Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
in two Arkansas prisons constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 437 U. S. 685 . In Ingraham v. WrightSearch
-
Id. at 430 U. S. 669 , quoting Ingraham v. WrightSearch
-
The Eighth Amendment also imposes a substantive limit on what can be made criminal and punished as such. Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
experts as to desirable prison conditions suffice to establish contemporary standards of decency. As we noted in Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
a prison's internal security is peculiarly a matter normally left to the discretion of prison administrators. See Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
Jones v. NorthSearch
-
We have sketched before the magnitude of the problems of prison administration. Procunier v. MartinezSearch
-
supra, at 416 U. S. 404 -405 (footnote omitted). See also Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
court decisions holding prison conditions to be violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments include Ramos v. LammSearch
-
Williams v. EdwardsSearch
-
Gates v. CollierSearch
-
Pugh v. LockeSearch
-
Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. EisenstadtSearch
-
For example, in Pugh v. LockeSearch
-
Unfortunately, the Alabama example is neither abberational nor anachronistic. Last year, in Ramos v. LammSearch
-
ante at 452 U. S. 351 , n. 16, quoting Procunier v. MartinezSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Rhodes v. ChapmanSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment, Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Ingraham v. WrightSearch
-
In Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
SOCF. See Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
In Ingraham v. WrightSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial