Whitley V. Albers Standard

14 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Unwin v. Police Officer Robert Campbell
  863 F.2d 124· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-09 ·cited 74×
  The dissent argues that interlocutory appeals for qualified immunity should not extend to purely factual determinations of evidence sufficiency.
• Cowans v. Wyrick
  862 F.2d 697· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the jury instruction on the Eighth Amendment standard for excessive force was flawed because it did not require a finding of malicious and sadistic intent or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.
• Reynaldo Huguet v. Barnett
  900 F.2d 838· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-11 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the inmate's Section 1983 excessive force claim under the Eighth Amendment standard, as the plaintiff failed to prove the necessary elements.
• Dock Brown v. Smith
  813 F.2d 1187· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 27×
  Summary judgment for prison officials is affirmed where the use of force did not inflict unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering, and the prisoner suffered only minimal injury.
• Miller v. Emery Leathers
  913 F.2d 1085· 4th Cir.· 1990-09-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, raised genuine issues of material fact regarding the necessity and proportionality of the force used, precluding summary judgment.
• Valencia v. Wiggins
  981 F.2d 1440· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-18 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Due Process Clause, not the Fourth Amendment, provides the constitutional basis for pretrial detainee excessive force claims, and the appropriate standard is whether force was applied maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm, not in goo
• Williams v. Browman
  981 F.2d 901· 6th Cir.· 1992-12-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's verified complaint, under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, can create genuine issues of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment, but in this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief from its prior summary judgmen
• Knight v. Harris D. Caldwell
  970 F.2d 1430· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's jury charge, which asked about injury before damages and did not require proof of 'significant injury,' was not plain error and was consistent with Supreme Court precedent.
• Stewart v. McMANUS
  924 F.2d 138· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Interstate Corrections Compact and its implementing contract did not mandate the application of Kansas disciplinary rules to inmates transferred to Iowa, and that the use of flex cuffs during a prison disturbance did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
• Beck v. Lynaugh
  842 F.2d 759· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dismissal of claims regarding unconstitutional living conditions and denial of religious services was erroneous, but the dismissal of other claims was appropriate.
• Stenzel v. Ellis
  916 F.2d 423· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the majority decision improperly denied the plaintiff a jury trial on his Eighth Amendment claim of excessive force.
• Wright v. Jones
  907 F.2d 848· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions for both compensatory and punitive damages were proper, and that the directed verdict for Richard Wright was also correct.
• Flowers v. Phelps
  956 F.2d 488· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the notices of appeal were sufficient, the Eighth Amendment claim was properly assessed using the malicious intent standard, and the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the state law claim due to the intentional nature of