Franks v. Kroger Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Constitution did not prohibit use of chemical agent for prisoner’s failure to obey “proper” order
• holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of mace for the sole purpose of punishing or inflicting pain on a prisoner
• holding that without such evidence an inmate cannot bring a successful Eighth Amendment claim
• holding that the use of mace, tear gas, or other similar chemical agents does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment when reasonably necessary to subdue a recalcitrant prisoner, even where the prisoner is locked in his cell or in handcuffs
• holding that the use of mace, tear gas, or other similar chemical agents does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment when reasonably necessary to subdue a recalcitrant prisoner, even where the prisoner is locked in his cell or in handcuffs
• according prison officials wide-ranging deference to adopt and execute policies “needed to preserve internal order and discipline”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).