Parrish v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
800 F.2d 600 · 1986
Citation profile
90 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Lavado v. Keohane (1993), Boretti v. Wiscomb (1991)
90 federal appellate · 2 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 Estelle v. Gamble · Wolff v. McDonnell · Bell v. Wolfish · Kentucky v. Graham · Gregg v. Georgia
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether a prisoner's claim rises to this level, the reasons or motivation for the conduct, the type and excessiveness of the force used, and the extent of the injury inflicted should be considered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Upon further examination of the practicalities and the ramifications of requiring a prisoner to always establish an actual injury as a prerequisite to obtaining damages, we decline to adopt such a rule. As we have previously discussed, the Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from a wide variety of conduct. The numerous types of tortious conduct and resultant injuries which the Eighth Amendment redresses militate heavily against our adopting an actual injury standard, because we simply cannot be certain that an actual injury requirement would be reflective of the common law or an appropriate prerequisite to obtaining damages in every situation. Cf. Doe [v. Dist. of Columbia], 697 F.2d [1115], 1124 n. 24 [ (D.C.Cir.1983) ] (noting that in some cases emotional distress might be inferred from an Eighth Amendment violation).... Thus, an actual injury should only be required when it appropriately remedies the constitutional violation. Since an across-the-board actual injury requirement in the context of the Eighth Amendment presents serious problems of application and fails to consider that in some instances damages may be inferable merely from the conduct constituting the constitutional violation, we decline to hold that establishing an actual injury is a necessary predicate to receive damages for an Eight Amendment violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In generalities, the Eighth Amendment proscribes disproportionate punishments, [ ] “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” [ ] and conduct repugnant to “evolving standards of decency[.”] In concrete terms, the Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from being severely beaten, [] intentionally denied medical care for serious medical needs, [ ] recklessly subjected to violent attacks or sexual assaults, [ ] and denied “the basic elements of hygiene.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.