Citation network
Whitley Vs. Albers
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 04, 1986
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. 312 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Whitley v. AlbersSearch
-
U.S. 312 (1986) Whitley v. AlbersSearch
-
to be based solely on the Eighth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Id. at 430 U. S. 671 , n. 40. Page 475 U. S. 319 See also Revere v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U. S. 535 , n. 16 (1979). An express intent to inflict unnecessary pain is not required, Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
supra, at 430 U. S. 670 (quoting Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
lack of due care for the prisoner's interests or safety. This reading of the Clause underlies our decision in Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
officials alike, in addition to the possible harms to inmates against whom force might be used. As we said in Hudson v. PalmerSearch
-
Johnson v. GlickSearch
-
F.2d 1028, 1033 (CA2) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied sub nom. John v. JohnsonSearch
-
respect to the unjustified infliction of harm as is tantamount to a knowing willingness that it occur. See Duckworth v. FranzenSearch
-
Block v. RutherfordSearch
-
Jones v. NorthSearch
-
properly raised below may be urged as a basis for affirmance of the Court of Appeals' decision, see United States v. NewSearch
-
and so violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Rochin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
n express intent to inflict unnecessary pain is not required, Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
Ingraham v. WrightSearch
-
should be made by the jury when it resolves disputed facts, not by the court in its role as arbiter of law. See Byrd v. BlueSearch
-
must be viewed in the light most favorable to respondent, who won a reversal of a directed verdict below. See Galloway v. UnitedSearch
-
This intent standard ostensibly derives from an opinion of Judge Friendly in Johnson v. GlickSearch
-
F.2d 1028, 1033 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. John v. JohnsonSearch
-
asserted by respondent before the District Court. For the reasons stated in JUSTICE BLACKMUN's dissent in Davidson v. CannonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Whitley v. AlbersSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment. See Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Revere v. MassachusettsSearch
-
John v. JohnsonSearch
-
See Duckworth v. FranzenSearch
-
United States v. NewSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment, Rochin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
See Byrd v. BlueSearch
-
See Galloway v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial