462 F. Supp. 813 - McCargo v. Mister’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2015
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Johnson v. Glick · Lee v. Texas · Landman v. Royster · McCray v. Burrell · Battle v. Anderson
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The use of tear gas against inmates in their cells is not per se a cruel and unusual punishment. In the landmark case of Landman v. Royster, 333 F.Supp. 621 (E.D.Va.1971), Judge Merhige noted that ‘[t]ear gas has also been used to silence noisy, misbehaving men while confined to their cells;’ however, in a situation where tear gas was used to punish or control a non-threatening inmate, the court concluded that such use was ‘generally disapproved.’ 333 F.Supp. at 649 . Similarly, in Greear v. Loving, 391 F.Supp. 1269 (W.D.Va.1975), vacated, 538 F.2d 578 (4th Cir.1976), the court remarked that ‘the use of tear gas is not forbidden in all instances but only when there appears to be no. necessity for its use,’ and went on to ‘emphasize the close scrutiny with which it considers the use of tear gas in correctional facilities.’ 391 F.Supp. at 1271 .” 7”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bailey v. Turner · No. 82-6552“the use of such agents should be strictly limited to circumstances presenting the utmost degree of danger and loss of control.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stringer v. Rowe · Lock v. Jenkins“(1) In self-defense from an assault by an inmate (2) In defense of third parties, such as another employee, another inmate, or a visitor (3) To enforce institutional directives or rules when an inmate refuses to obey such rules and non-forceful methods have failed (4) To prevent a commission of a crime, such as malicious destruction of State property or an institutional riot (5) To prevent escape.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.