Skip to main content
Tenth Circuit· 1/5/2007

Hamilton v. Jones

Citations

  • 472 F.3d 814
  • 2007 WL 18926

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding inmate was unlikely to prevail on his claim that the Eighth Amendment demanded that Oklahoma make provisions for monitoring inmate’s anesthetization
  • concluding inmate was unlikely to prevail on his claim that the Eighth Amendment demanded that Oklahoma make provisions for monitoring inmate’s anesthetization
  • rejecting a similar challenge to Oklahoma’s protocol, which requires that “an EMT-P or person with similar qualifications and expertise in IV insertion” establish the IV drips (citation omitted)
  • rejecting a similar challenge to Oklahoma’s protocol, which requires that “an EMT-P or person with similar qualifications and expertise in IV insertion” establish the IV drips (citation omitted)
  • “[T]he Constitution does not require the use of execution procedures that may be medically optimal in other contexts. Rather, ... such procedures [must] ‘not involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’ ”
  • “[T]he Constitution does not require the use of execution procedures that may be medically optimal in other contexts. Rather, . . . such procedures [must] ‘not involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Tacha, O'Brien, Tymkovich

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.