Citation network
Smith Vs. Wade
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 20, 1983
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. 30 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. WadeSearch
-
U.S. 30 (1983) Smith v. WadeSearch
-
vague, and would more readily serve the purpose of deterrence of future egregious conduct, is unpersuasive. Cf. Gertz v. RobertSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sustained the award of punitive damages. Wade v. HaynesSearch
-
Tr. 639. Further, because of Smith's qualified immunity as a prison Page 461 U. S. 33 guard, see Procunier v. NavaretteSearch
-
in punitive damages. The District Court entered judgment on the verdict, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Wade v. HaynesSearch
-
in favor of persons deprived of federally secured rights. Carey v. PiphusSearch
-
Scott v. DonaldSearch
-
B.R. Co. v. QuigleySearch
-
Page 461 U. S. 42 The Court further explained the standard for punitive damages in Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. v. ArmsSearch
-
Pacific R. Co. v.Humes, 115 U. S. 512 , 115 U. S. 521 (1885). See also Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. BeckwithSearch
-
points out that punitive damages, by their very nature, are not awarded to compensate the injured party. See Newport v. FactSearch
-
Electrical Workers v. FoustSearch
-
Gertz v. RobertSearch
-
Owen v. CitySearch
-
his use of discretion in his day-to-day decisions in the running of a correctional facility. See generally Procunier v. NavaretteSearch
-
Newport v. FactSearch
-
here), we might be highly reluctant to assume that Congress intended to perpetuate a now-obsolete doctrine. See Carey v. PiphusSearch
-
Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. v. ArmsSearch
-
Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. HumesSearch
-
Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. BeckwithSearch
-
E.g., Nightingale v. ScannellSearch
-
Friend v. HamillSearch
-
Lynd v. PicketSearch
-
Parker v. ShackelfordSearch
-
Rodgers v. FergusonSearch
-
Stinson v. BuissonSearch
-
Nagle v. MullisonSearch
-
Von Storch v. WinslowSearch
-
R.I. 23, 24-25 (1880). Cf. Brewer v. WatsonSearch
-
Ala. 299, 307 (1882). See also e.g., Lane v. YamamotoSearch
-
Wilson v. EaganSearch
-
In Newport v. FactSearch
-
Id. at 453 U. S. 269 -270 (footnote omitted). Similarly, in Carlson v. GreenSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. WadeSearch
-
Cf. Gertz v. RobertSearch
-
Wade v. HaynesSearch
-
In Philadelphia, W. & B.R. Co. v. QuigleySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial