Robert O. Gilmore, Jr., and Inmates of San Quentin State Prison, United States of America, Intervenor v. People of the State of California

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court erred by not “plac[ing] the burden on the state to show that the 1972 Order exceeded the constitutional minimum”
• holding that under federal Prison Litigation Reform Act, courts cannot order prison administrators “to do more than the constitutional minimum”
• stating that modification of a consent decree “is warranted if there is a ‘significant change either in factual conditions or in law.’”
• finding that the language of the statute “deviates from common usage.”
• explaining that, although a consent decree ordinarily is a final judgment, under the PLRA a consent decree has a different meaning; the statute defines “consent decree” to include any relief ordered by the court that incorporates, even in part, the parties’ agreement
• “Thus, any prospective relief becomes terminable, at the latest, two years after its imposi tion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).