Citation network
Hudson Vs. Mcmillian
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 13, 1991
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
-
Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States at October Term, 1991 Syllabus Hudson V. McmillianSearch
-
violative of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is that set out in Whitley v. AlbersSearch
-
of force, whether the prison disturbance is a riot or a lesser disruption, works no innovation. See, e. g., Johnson v. GlickSearch
-
merit to respondents' assertion that a significant injury requirement is mandated by what this Court termed, in Wilson v. SeiterSearch
-
with the Constitution's dictate that cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted. II In Whitley v. AlbersSearch
-
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.''' Id., at 319 (quoting Ingraham v. WrightSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
See Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.''' Id., at 320-321 (quoting Johnson v. GlickSearch
-
F.2d 1028 , 1033 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. John v. JohnsonSearch
-
preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.''' 475 U. S., at 321-322 (quoting Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
force works no innovation. This Court derived the Whitley test from one articulated by Judge Friendly in Johnson v. GlickSearch
-
already apply the Whitley standard to allegations of excessive force outside of the riot situation. See Corselli v. CoughlinSearch
-
Miller v. LeathersSearch
-
Haynes v. MarshallSearch
-
Stenzel v. EllisSearch
-
Brown v. SmithSearch
-
F.2d 1187 , 1188 (CAll 1987). But see Unwin v. CampbellSearch
-
of Eighth Amendment analysis. See Wilson v. SeiterSearch
-
and so admits of few absolute limitations. Rhodes v. ChapmanSearch
-
U. S. 337 , 346 (1981) (quoting Trop v. DullesSearch
-
That is not to say that every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action. See Johnson v. GlickSearch
-
Wilson did touch on these matters in the course of summarizing our prior holdings, beginning with Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
that animate the Eighth Amendment. Estelle, supra, at 102 (quoting Jackson v. BishopSearch
-
prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. See Johnson v. GlickSearch
-
George v. EvansSearch
-
But see Duckworth v. FranzenSearch
-
of Appeals is Reversed. JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. In Whitley v. AlbersSearch
-
should be applied. Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
U. S. 97 , 104 (1976) (quoting Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
see Unwin v. CampbellSearch
-
see also Wyatt v. DelaneySearch
-
be practiced only outside this Nation's borders, are hardly unknown within this Nation's prisons. See, e. g., Campbell v. GrammerSearch
-
Jackson v. BishopSearch
-
device that generated electric shocks to sensitive body parts, and flogging with leather strap). See also Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
U. S. 678 , 682, n. 5 (1978). Because I was in the dissent in Whitley v. AlbersSearch
-
standing to sue should be conferred upon certain plaintiffs. See, e. g., Associated General Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. CarpentersSearch
-
Blue Chip Stamps v. ManorSearch
-
and imprisoned usually is divested of the franchise, the right to file a court action stands, in the words of Yick Wo v. HopkinsSearch
-
Patsy v. BoardSearch
-
they acted in an objectively reasonable manner, thereby entitling them to a qualified immunity defense. Procunier v. NavaretteSearch
-
see also Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial