Edwin C. West v. Kurt Schwebke

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that determining whether professional judgment was employed requires an assessment of what a reasonable person could think appropriate from a security perspective
• holding that, in managing SVP detainees, “there is room for both disagreement and trial-and-error; all the Constitution requires is that punishment be avoided and medical judgment be exercised”
• holding that civil detainees’ Four- teenth Amendment rights were violated because they were held in seclusion cells for many days, were only let out for one hour per day in shackles, and were not provided with essential amenities
• remanding for consideration on whether WRC’s use of seclusion violated detainees’ civil rights
• noting conflicting evidence on whether policy was “appropriate from a security perspective”
• noting conflicting evidence on whether policy was “appropriate from a security perspective”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).