Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Davidson Vs. Cannon

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 21, 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

71 entries 12 linked 59 unlinked
Show
  1. ingraham Vs. Wright US Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1977
  2. Wolff Vs. Mcdonnell US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1974
  3. Monroe Vs. Pape US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1961
  4. Hudson Vs. Palmer US Supreme Court · Jul 03, 1984
  5. Martinez Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1980
  6. Scheuer Vs. Rhodes US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1974
  7. Mitchum Vs. Foster US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1972
  8. Estelle Vs. Gamble US Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1976
  9. United States Vs. Classic US Supreme Court · May 26, 1941
  10. Bell Vs. Wolfish US Supreme Court · May 14, 1979
  11. Ferri Vs. Ackerman US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1979
  12. Youngberg Vs. Romeo US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1982
  13. U.S. 344 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Davidson v. Cannon
    Search
  14. U.S. 344 (1985) Davidson v. Cannon
    Search
  15. Amendment, whether procedural or substantive, are not triggered by lack of due care by prison officials. Daniels v. Williams
    Search
  16. Ibid. Petitioner was thereby deprived, see Parratt v. Taylor
    Search
  17. U. S. 527 , 451 U. S. 536 -537 (1981), of his liberty interest in personal security, see Igraham v. Wright
    Search
  18. the District Court. We granted certiorari, 471 U.S. 1134 (1985), and set this case for oral argument with Daniels v. Williams
    Search
  19. quite different from one involving injuries caused by an unjustified attack by prison guards themselves, see Johnson v. Glick
    Search
  20. F.2d 1028 (CA2), (Friendly, J.), cert. denied sub nom. John v. Johnson
    Search
  21. S. 1033 (1973), or by another prisoner where officials simply stood by and permitted the attack to proceed, see Curtis v. Everette
    Search
  22. F.2d 516 (CA3 1973), cert. denied sub nom. Smith v. Curtis
    Search
  23. Ante at 474 U. S. 347 . It relies for this proposition and result on the easier companion case, Daniels v. Williams
    Search
  24. ante p. 474 U. S. 327 , which overrules in part Parratt v. Taylor
    Search
  25. hobby kit, see Parratt v. Taylor
    Search
  26. It is well established that this liberty includes freedom from unjustified intrusions on personal security. Ingraham v. Wright
    Search
  27. it includes a prisoner's right to safe conditions and to security from attack by other inmates. See Youngberg v. Romeo
    Search
  28. prisoner of the liberty he retains after imprisonment, it must afford him constitutionally adequate procedures. Vitek v. Jones
    Search
  29. U. S. 167 , 365 U. S. 184 (1961), quoting United States v. Classic
    Search
  30. central to one of the State's primary missions in running a prison -- the maintenance of internal security. See Hudson v. Palmer
    Search
  31. when they disregard the potential for violence between a known violent inmate and a known likely victim. In Smith v. Wade
    Search
  32. Layne v. Vinzant
    Search
  33. F.2d 468, 471 (CA1 1981), quoting West v. Rowe
    Search
  34. F.Supp. 58, 60 (ND Ill.1978). See also Matzker v. Herr
    Search
  35. Miller v. Solem
    Search
  36. F.2d 1020, 1024-1025 (CA8), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 841 (1984). Cf. Baker v. McCollan
    Search
  37. delayed protecting Davidson's personal security in the face of a real and known possibility of violence. See Porm v. White
    Search
  38. F.2d 635, 636-638 (CA8 1986). Cf. Estelle v. Gamble
    Search
  39. denial of essential medical care violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. See Estelle v. Gamble
    Search
  40. U. S. 104 . The Due Process Clause provides broader protection than does the Eighth Amendment, see, e.g., Bell v. Wolfish
    Search
  41. Revere v. Massachusetts
    Search
  42. the State could satisfy procedural due process by a meaningful postdeprivation remedy, such as a tort suit. Parratt v. Taylor
    Search
  43. immunities, to state law causes of action, as long as the state rule does not conflict with federal law. Ferri v. Ackerman
    Search
  44. U. S. 277 , 444 U. S. 284 , n. 8 (1980), quoting Hampton v. Chicago
    Search
  45. federal interests argue for allowing Davidson to bring his suit in the face of the New Jersey statute. See Ferri v. Ackerman
    Search
  46. Logan v. Zimmerman
    Search
  47. The Court in Youngberg v. Romeo
    Search
  48. within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. White v. Rochford
    Search
  49. typically part of the State's legitimate restraint of liberty as a function of punishing convicted persons. See Rhodes v. Chapman
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Davidson v. Cannon
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial