Citation network
Rufo Vs. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 15, 1992
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
-
Rufo v. InmatesSearch
-
County Jail - 502 U.S. 367 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Rufo, Sheriff of Suffolk County, Et Al. V. InmatesSearch
-
the sheriff argued that modification was required by a change in law, this Court's postdecree decision in Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
detainees. The District Court denied relief, holding that Rule 60(b)(5) codified the standard of United States v. SwiftSearch
-
Rapone, Commissioner of Correction of Massachusetts v. InmatesSearch
-
Attorney General v. SheriffSearch
-
N. E. 2d 361, 362 (1985), are documented in the decision of the District Court. See Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. EisenstadtSearch
-
necessary to renovate another existing facility as a substitute detention center. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. KearneySearch
-
conditions at the Charles Street Jail were also vulnerable under the Eighth Amendment. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. EisenstadtSearch
-
appeal the District Court's decision holding that he was a proper party to the lawsuit. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. EisenstadtSearch
-
Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. KearneySearch
-
Litigation in the state courts ensued, and defendants were ordered to build a larger jail. At torney General v. SheriffSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in law and in fact required the modification. The asserted change in law was this Court's 1979 decision in Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
refused to grant the requested modification, holding that the sheriff had failed to meet the standard of United States v. SwiftSearch
-
Inmates of 4 See, e. g., New York State Assn. for Retarded Children, Inc. v. CareySearch
-
Philadelphia Welfare Rights Organization v. ShappSearch
-
Plyler v. EvattSearch
-
Newman v. GraddickSearch
-
F.2d 1513 (CAll 1984). 378 Suffolk County Jail v. KearneySearch
-
a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees. Railway Employes v. WrightSearch
-
standard of United States v. SwiftSearch
-
female inmates at the new jail. The sheriff appealed, and the First Circuit affirmed. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. KearneySearch
-
traditional flexible standard for modification of consent decrees. New York State Assn. for Retarded Children, Inc. v. CareySearch
-
U. S. 915 (1983). But that conclusion does not follow when the standard is read in context. See United States v. UnitedSearch
-
S., at 647. The same theme was repeated in our decision last Term in Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. DowellSearch
-
permits a less stringent, more flexible standard. The upsurge in institutional reform litigation since Brown v. BoardSearch
-
changes occurring during the life of the decree is increased. See, e. g., Philadelphia Welfare Rights Organization v. ShappSearch
-
essential to achieving the goals of reform litigation. See, e. g., New York State Assn. for Retarded Children, Inc. v. CareySearch
-
Courcy, 888 F.2d 1105 , 1109 (CA6 1989). Accord, New York State Assn. for Retarded Children, Inc. v. CareySearch
-
it became apparent that plans for the new jail did not provide sufficient cell space. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. KearneySearch
-
a decree proves to be unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles, New York State Assn. for Retarded Children, Inc. v. CareySearch
-
or when enforcement of the decree without modification would be detrimental to the public interest, Duran v. ElrodSearch
-
a party relies upon events that actually were anticipated at the time it entered into a decree. See Twelve John Does v. DistrictSearch
-
Ruiz v. LynaughSearch
-
the decree, as originally issued and modified, called for a facility with single cells. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. KearneySearch
-
App.111. 388 This was the case in Railway Employes v. WrightSearch
-
Railway Employes, supra, at 651. See also Firefighters v. StottsSearch
-
and n. 9, 583, n. 17 (1984). Petitioner Rapone urges that, without more, our 1979 decision in Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
a course of conduct not tailored to curing a constitutional violation that has been adjudicated. See Milliken v. BradleySearch
-
United States v. ArmourSearch
-
the agreed-upon decree, which clearly was related to the conditions found to offend the Constitution. Milliken v. BradleySearch
-
Milliken I), 418 U. S. 717 , 738 (1974). See also Dowell, 498 U. S., at 246-248. Cf. Firefighters v. ClevelandSearch
-
had based their agreement on a misunderstanding of the governing law. For instance, in Pasadena City Bd. of Ed. v. SpanglerSearch
-
Syllabus Rufo, Sheriff of Suffolk County, Et Al. V. InmatesSearch
-
of United States v. SwiftSearch
-
Rapone, Commissioner of Correction of Massachusetts v. InmatesSearch
-
of the District Court. See Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. EisenstadtSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial