green
Positive treatment
19.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Purdue v. NaphCare
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 5 97, 104-05 (1976); Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 . 6 Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or lack of ordinary due 7 care for the prisoner’s safety.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Allison 343375 v. Burnette
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 5 97, 104-05 (1976); Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 . 6 Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or lack of ordinary due 7 care for the prisoner’s safety.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Bowcutt v. Daram
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 5 97, 104-05 (1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Colley v. Benton County Washington
See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 5 97, 106 (1976). 6 Finally, “[d]eclaratory relief should be denied when it will neither serve a 7 useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue nor terminate 8 the proceedings and afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy faced by the 9 parties.” State of Wash., 759 F.2d at 1357.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wood v. Montana 1st Judicial District
(Doc. 2 at 3.) The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishments and “embodies broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity and decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 5 97, 102 (1976) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted.) “[T]he Court's precedents consider punishments challenged not as inherently barbaric but as disproportionate to the crime.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chappel v. Adams County Children's Services
As relevant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 5 97, 106 (1976)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Steah 200537 v. Shinn
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 5 97, 104-05 (1976); Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 . 6 Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or lack of ordinary due 7 care for the prisoner’s safety.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) McCowan v. McKeown
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 5 97, 104-05 (1976).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Howard v. Aryad
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 5 97, 104-05 (1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Boggs v. Shinn
Whether a Sixth Amendment violation exists depends on whether the intrusions were purposeful and whether the 3 prosecution, either directly or indirectly, obtained evidence or learned of defense strategy from the intrusions.” State v. Pecard, 196 Ariz. 371 , 377 ¶ 4 28, 998 P.2d 453, 459 (App.1999) (citing Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 5 545, 558 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977)). 6 In Warner, this Court addressed an argument similar to that made by Boggs. 7 See 150 Ariz. at 125–28, 722 P.2d at 293–96.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Carlson
Appellant also contends that there is no jeopardy preclusion because the municipal *955 appeal was not really "de novo" and the legal question can be decided on the stipulated facts without a "retrial." United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 , 95 S.Ct. 1013 , 43 L.Ed. 2d 232 (1975), allows the government to appeal when a reversal would not require a retrial, and Wilson applies to bench trials, United States v. Rose, 429 U.S. 5 , 97 S.Ct. 26, 27 , 50 L.Ed. 2d 5, 7 (1976); United States v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1, 3 , 97 S.Ct. 24, 26 , 50 L.Ed. 2d 1, 4 (1976). [4] But this case is nevertheless barre…
cited
Cited "see"
George v. Diaz
See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 5 97, 104 (1976); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004).
examined
Cited "see"
People v. District Court, In & for the Seventeenth Judicial District
(3×)
An accused under these circumstances has no “legitimate claim to benefit from an error of law when that error could be corrected without subjecting him to a second trial before a second trier of fact.” United States v. Wilson, supra, 420 U.S. at 345 , 95 S.Ct. at 1023 , 43 L.Ed.2d at 242-43 ; accord, e.g., United States v. Rose, 429 U.S. 5 , 97 S.Ct. 26 , 50 L.Ed.2d 5 (1976); United States v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 24 , 50 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976).
examined
Cited "see"
People v. DIST. CT., IN & FOR 17TH JUD. DIST.
(3×)
An accused under these circumstances has no "legitimate claim to benefit from an error of law when that error could be corrected without subjecting him to a second trial before a second trier of fact." United States v. Wilson, supra, 420 U.S. at 345 , 95 S.Ct. at 1023 , 43 L.Ed.2d at 242-43 ; accord, e.g., United States v. Rose, 429 U.S. 5 , 97 S.Ct. 26 , 50 L.Ed.2d 5 (1976); United States v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 24 , 50 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976).
examined
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Parker
(6×)
Accord, United States v. Rose, 429 U.S. 5 , 97 S.Ct. 26 , 50 L.Ed.2d 5 (1976); United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 , 95 S.Ct. 1013 , 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975); See also United States v. Dixon, 658 F.2d 181, 187-88 , N. 12 at 188 (3rd Cir. 1981); United States v. Hecht, 638 F.2d 651 (3rd Cir. 1981).
examined
Cited "see"
Johnnie Marie Sumpter v. James Degroote, Sheriff of Vanderburgh County, Indiana
(3×)
See United States v. Rose, 429 U.S. 5 , 97 S.Ct. 26 , 50 L.Ed.2d 5 (1976); United States v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 24 , 50 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State ex rel. Yates v. Court of Appeals
See, also, United States v. Rose (1976), 429 U.S. 5 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Rose
v.
Rose
75-1535.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 12, 1976.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 37 opinions | Published
Per Curiam.
The operative facts herein are substantially identical to those in United States v. Morrison, ante, p. 1. Respondent’s ear was stopped by Border Patrol agents; a search disclosed marihuana. Respondent lost a motion to suppress and was found guilty after a bench trial. Following this trial, but before sentencing, the District Court, relying upon our decision in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), granted respondent’s motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, as it did in Morrison, found the Government’s appeal barred by double jeopardy.
In United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332 (1975), we held that double jeopardy would not bar a Government appeal if success on that appeal would result in the reinstatement of a verdict of guilty. The fact that the order of suppression here occurred after a general finding of guilt rendered by the court in a bench trial, rather than after a return of a verdict of guilty by a jury, is immaterial. Morrison, ante, p. 1. Double jeopardy, therefore, does not bar an appeal by the Government.
We grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand to that court for proceedings consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.