Hutto v. Finney
United States Supreme Court
437 US. 678 (1978)
In 1969, Arkansas inmates (plaintiffs) sued, alleging that the conditions of the jail constituted violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court described the conditions endured by these inmates as a dark and evil world completely alien to the free world. The evidence overwhelmingly supported this conclusion. The jail was overcrowded because it housed 1,000 inmates. In addition to many other issues, the jail utilized the practice of punitive isolation, which resulted in multiple inmates being placed in windowless 8’ x 10’ cells. The cells contained no furniture other than a source of water and a toilet that would only flush from outside of the cell. The prisoners in isolation would receive fewer than 1,000 calories per day. The district court directed the Arkansas Department of Corrections to make a substantial start on improving conditions and to file reports on its progress. After a second hearing on the jail conditions, the district court concluded that the conditions remained unconstitutional, and issued guidelines to address the four most serious areas that needed to be improved. These areas were improving conditions in the isolation cells, increasing inmate safety, eliminating the barracks sleeping arrangements, and ending the trusty system. The court held additional hearings through the next few years, and discovered, during a hearing in 1976, that conditions had substantially deteriorated. The inmate population increased to 1,500 and the isolation cells were particularly disturbing. The cells had been vandalized, prisoners were being kept in them for months at a time, violence among the inmates was rampant, and the guards were forced to use nightsticks and mace to control the inmates. The trial court entered an injunction requiring that the 1,000 calorie diet be discontinued, the number of inmates in one cell be limited, a bunk be placed in each cell, and that an isolation sentence could not exceed 30 days at time.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Breyer, J.)
Dissent (Rehnquist, J)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.