Stringer v. Rowe’s Empirical Analysis
616 F.2d 993 · 1980
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably Shango v. Jurich (1982), Crowder v. Lash (1982)
37 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Wolff v. McDonnell · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Meachum v. Fano · Preiser v. Newkirk
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The use of a chemical restraint such as mace by and of itself does not establish excessive and unjustified force. As in every instance where force is employed, the reasonableness of its use depends on the surrounding circumstances. Chemical agents should not be indiscriminately employed so you should consider the amount, frequency, purpose of use in determining whether the macing constitutes excessive force. Mace may bé reasonably used to quell disorders and to compel obedience but not to punish a prisoner. In deciding whether the force employed by a particular defendant was unjustified, excessive and unreasonable, you should keep in mind that the Defendants’ actions took place in an environment different from the quiet of the courtroom, that they occurred within the confines of a prison where it was the Defendants’ duty to maintain order and discipline, and [in] such an environment — not every use of force is a constitutional violation but only that use of force which shocks a reasonable person’s conscience because it is unjustified, excessive and unreasonable. Factors which you should consider in deciding whether such force was used against Plaintiff include, but are not limited to, one, the need for the application of the force; two, the relationship between the need for force and the amount of force used; three, the extent of injury inflicted; and four, whether the force was applied in good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or was used maliciously or sadisti”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he use of tear gas when reasonably necessary to prevent riots or escapes or to subdue recalcitrant prisoners does not constitute cruel and inhuman punishment,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lock v. Jenkins · No. 82-6552“the use of such agents should be strictly limited to circumstances presenting the utmost degree of danger and loss of control.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lock v. Jenkins
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.