|
211 Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). See also Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1991) (allowing modification, based on a significant change in law or facts, of a 1979 consent decree that had ordered construction of a new jail with single-occupancy cells;
|
supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-08/14-prisons...
supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-08/14-prisons-and-punishment.html
|
|
|
|
RHODES v. CHAPMAN, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) ... RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, ET AL. v. CHAPMAN ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 80-332. Argued March 2, 1981. Decided June 15, 1981. ... In Estelle v. Gamble, supra, we held that the denial of medical care is cruel and unusual...
|
laws.findlaw.com/us/452/337.html
|
|
|
In Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution "does not mandate comfortable prisons" and that deference to the legislature was appropriate in the absence of infliction of needless pain or other Eighth Amendment violations.
|
www.conservapedia.com/Rhodes_v._Chapman
www.conservapedia.com/Rhodes_v._Chapman
|
|
Chief Justice Burger: We'll hear arguments next in Rhodes v. Chapman. ... In Bell v. Wolfish this Court dealt with what was described as inconvenience and discomfort. ... And if my reading of Bell v. Wolfish is correct, and you certainly know if it is or it isn't, I read Bell to say that privation and hardship carried out over...
|
www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_332/argument/
|
|
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981), U.S. Supreme Court - U.S. Supreme Court RHODES v. CHAPMAN, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) 452 U.S. 337 RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, ET AL. v. CHAPMAN ET AL. CERTIORARI TO ... ... RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, ET AL. v. CHAPMAN ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH...
|
supreme.vlex.com/vid/rhodes-v-chapman-19980374
supreme.vlex.com/vid/rhodes-v-chapman-19980374
|
|
In Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2396, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981), the Supreme Court considered the limitation the eighth amendment imposes "upon the conditions in which a state may confine those convicted of crimes." Id.
|
vlex.com/vid/37011644
vlex.com/vid/37011644
|
|
At the time the State caved in and agreed to the consent decree, its counsel, the Attorney General of Ohio, did not have the benefit of the recent double-cell decision in its favor of the Supreme Court in Rhodes v. Chapman, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981) or it would never have agreed to the harsh...
|
www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/496233
www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/496233
|
|
1. A prisoner claiming that the conditions of his confinement violate the Eighth Amendment must show a culpable state of mind on the part of prison officials. See, e. g., Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, distinguished.
|
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-7376.ZS.html
|
|
Jean P. Kamp (on behalf of the Respondents) ... Allen P. Adler (on behalf of the Petitioners) ... Decision: 8 votes for Rhodes, 1 vote(s) against; Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment...
|
www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_332
|
|
