Supreme Court· 1/15/1979

Hutto v. Finney

Citations

437 U.S. 678
98 S. Ct. 2565
57 L. Ed. 2d 522
1978 U.S. LEXIS 125

How courts have described this case

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

holding that district court had authority to place maximum limit of thirty days on confinement in isolation . cells
ruling that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar recovery of attorney's fees from state officers acting in their official capacities
recognizing that “the length of confinement cannot be ignored in deciding whether the confinement meets constitutional standards”
recognizing that a “filthy, overcrowded cell and a diet of ‘grue’ might be tolerable for a few days and intolerably cruel for weeks or months”
holding that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment by, among other things, regularly jumbling the inmates’ mattresses even though some inmates suffered from infectious diseases
recognizing that “the length of confinement cannot be ignored in deciding whether the confinement meets constitutional standards”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rbhnquist, Stevens, Bkennan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun, White, Burger, Powell, Brennan, Rehnquist

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1,364 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

49 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Hutto v. Finney

3 other CourtListener records share this case 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.