context
stringlengths 58
1.13k
| citation_a
dict | citation_b
dict | case_id
int64 475
12.5M
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Put simply, the argument is wrong and has been consistently rejected by numerous courts, including this one. But while not dispositive of the inquiry, the fact that Plaintiffs classified themselves as independent contractors on their tax returns and took business deductions certainly weighs in favor of independent contractor status, as does the fact that drivers did not receive any benefits from Defendants. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "977 F.Supp.2d 187, 202",
"parenthetical": "\"That Mr. Kalloo received a 1099 form does not outweigh the other, more substantial aspects of his relationship with defendants.\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Velu, 666 F.Supp.2d at 307 (npting that the defendant’s limited provision of benefits weighed in favor of independent contractor status for purposes of the FLSA); Sellers, 2014 WL 104682, at *8 (“Plaintiff received 1099 forms ... and defendants did not withhold payroll or other employment-related taxes or issue W-2 forms to plaintiff. Plaintiff[’]s tax treatment by defendants signifies that he was in fact an independent contractor.”); cf. Kalloo v. Unlimited Mech Co. of N.Y., 977 F.Supp.2d 187, 202 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (“That Mr. Kalloo received a 1099 form does not outweigh the other, more substantial aspects of his relationship with defendants.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "666 F.Supp.2d 307, 307",
"parenthetical": "npting that the defendant's limited provision of benefits weighed in favor of independent contractor status for purposes of the FLSA",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Velu, 666 F.Supp.2d at 307 (npting that the defendant’s limited provision of benefits weighed in favor of independent contractor status for purposes of the FLSA); Sellers, 2014 WL 104682, at *8 (“Plaintiff received 1099 forms ... and defendants did not withhold payroll or other employment-related taxes or issue W-2 forms to plaintiff. Plaintiff[’]s tax treatment by defendants signifies that he was in fact an independent contractor.”); cf. Kalloo v. Unlimited Mech Co. of N.Y., 977 F.Supp.2d 187, 202 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (“That Mr. Kalloo received a 1099 form does not outweigh the other, more substantial aspects of his relationship with defendants.”)."
} | 4,059,732 | b |
Put simply, the argument is wrong and has been consistently rejected by numerous courts, including this one. But while not dispositive of the inquiry, the fact that Plaintiffs classified themselves as independent contractors on their tax returns and took business deductions certainly weighs in favor of independent contractor status, as does the fact that drivers did not receive any benefits from Defendants. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "977 F.Supp.2d 187, 202",
"parenthetical": "\"That Mr. Kalloo received a 1099 form does not outweigh the other, more substantial aspects of his relationship with defendants.\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Velu, 666 F.Supp.2d at 307 (npting that the defendant’s limited provision of benefits weighed in favor of independent contractor status for purposes of the FLSA); Sellers, 2014 WL 104682, at *8 (“Plaintiff received 1099 forms ... and defendants did not withhold payroll or other employment-related taxes or issue W-2 forms to plaintiff. Plaintiff[’]s tax treatment by defendants signifies that he was in fact an independent contractor.”); cf. Kalloo v. Unlimited Mech Co. of N.Y., 977 F.Supp.2d 187, 202 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (“That Mr. Kalloo received a 1099 form does not outweigh the other, more substantial aspects of his relationship with defendants.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "2014 WL 104682, at *8",
"parenthetical": "\"Plaintiff received 1099 forms ... and defendants did not withhold payroll or other employment-related taxes or issue W-2 forms to plaintiff. Plaintiff[']s tax treatment by defendants signifies that he was in fact an independent contractor.\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Velu, 666 F.Supp.2d at 307 (npting that the defendant’s limited provision of benefits weighed in favor of independent contractor status for purposes of the FLSA); Sellers, 2014 WL 104682, at *8 (“Plaintiff received 1099 forms ... and defendants did not withhold payroll or other employment-related taxes or issue W-2 forms to plaintiff. Plaintiff[’]s tax treatment by defendants signifies that he was in fact an independent contractor.”); cf. Kalloo v. Unlimited Mech Co. of N.Y., 977 F.Supp.2d 187, 202 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (“That Mr. Kalloo received a 1099 form does not outweigh the other, more substantial aspects of his relationship with defendants.”)."
} | 4,059,732 | b |
1110 In order for the DeCostros to have stood in loco parentis to W.C.K. they must have assumed parental status through some legally cognizable means, predicated on Mother's consent to an adoptive placement. Clearly, the DeCost-ros do not stand in loco parentis to W.C.K. because Mother never intended to permanently place W.C.K. with either Kiefer or the DeCostros. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "stating that the most significant factor in determining whether individuals stand in loco parentis to a child for purposes of section 2512 is whether the party with legal custody intended to permanently place the child with the individuals",
"sentence": "See also In re Adoption of J.M.E., 416 Pa.Super. 110, 610 A.2d 995, 998 (1992) (stating that the most significant factor in determining whether individuals stand in loco parentis to a child for purposes of section 2512 is whether the party with legal custody intended to permanently place the child with the individuals)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "713 A.2d 639, 643",
"parenthetical": "stating that individuals were prospective adoptive parents because the natural mother's intent was for the individuals to adopt her child",
"sentence": "See Silfies v. Webster, 713 A.2d 639, 643 (Pa.Super.1998) (stating that individuals were prospective adoptive parents because the natural mother’s intent was for the individuals to adopt her child)."
} | 11,454,205 | b |
1110 In order for the DeCostros to have stood in loco parentis to W.C.K. they must have assumed parental status through some legally cognizable means, predicated on Mother's consent to an adoptive placement. Clearly, the DeCost-ros do not stand in loco parentis to W.C.K. because Mother never intended to permanently place W.C.K. with either Kiefer or the DeCostros. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "610 A.2d 995, 998",
"parenthetical": "stating that the most significant factor in determining whether individuals stand in loco parentis to a child for purposes of section 2512 is whether the party with legal custody intended to permanently place the child with the individuals",
"sentence": "See also In re Adoption of J.M.E., 416 Pa.Super. 110, 610 A.2d 995, 998 (1992) (stating that the most significant factor in determining whether individuals stand in loco parentis to a child for purposes of section 2512 is whether the party with legal custody intended to permanently place the child with the individuals)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "713 A.2d 639, 643",
"parenthetical": "stating that individuals were prospective adoptive parents because the natural mother's intent was for the individuals to adopt her child",
"sentence": "See Silfies v. Webster, 713 A.2d 639, 643 (Pa.Super.1998) (stating that individuals were prospective adoptive parents because the natural mother’s intent was for the individuals to adopt her child)."
} | 11,454,205 | b |
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants. Klein-hammer failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not defendants had notice that he intended to pursue his claims and whether or not his conduct was reasonable during the applicable period. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "5 F.3d 391, 395",
"parenthetical": "the burden to plead facts which would give rise to equitable tolling falls upon the plaintiff",
"sentence": "See Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.1999) (“Under California law, a plaintiff must meet three conditions to equitably toll a statute of limitations: (1) defendant must have had timely notice of the claim; (2) defendant must not be prejudiced by being required to defend the otherwise barred claim; and (3) plaintiffs conduct must have been reasonable and in good faith.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir.1993) (the burden to plead facts which would give rise to equitable tolling falls upon the plaintiff); Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365, 374 (9th Cir.1998) (on summary judgment plaintiff bears burden of presenting evidence to support complaint’s allegations)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "192 F.3d 911, 916",
"parenthetical": "\"Under California law, a plaintiff must meet three conditions to equitably toll a statute of limitations: (1",
"sentence": "See Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.1999) (“Under California law, a plaintiff must meet three conditions to equitably toll a statute of limitations: (1) defendant must have had timely notice of the claim; (2) defendant must not be prejudiced by being required to defend the otherwise barred claim; and (3) plaintiffs conduct must have been reasonable and in good faith.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir.1993) (the burden to plead facts which would give rise to equitable tolling falls upon the plaintiff); Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365, 374 (9th Cir.1998) (on summary judgment plaintiff bears burden of presenting evidence to support complaint’s allegations)."
} | 3,930,659 | b |
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants. Klein-hammer failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not defendants had notice that he intended to pursue his claims and whether or not his conduct was reasonable during the applicable period. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "192 F.3d 911, 916",
"parenthetical": "\"Under California law, a plaintiff must meet three conditions to equitably toll a statute of limitations: (1",
"sentence": "See Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.1999) (“Under California law, a plaintiff must meet three conditions to equitably toll a statute of limitations: (1) defendant must have had timely notice of the claim; (2) defendant must not be prejudiced by being required to defend the otherwise barred claim; and (3) plaintiffs conduct must have been reasonable and in good faith.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir.1993) (the burden to plead facts which would give rise to equitable tolling falls upon the plaintiff); Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365, 374 (9th Cir.1998) (on summary judgment plaintiff bears burden of presenting evidence to support complaint’s allegations)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "159 F.3d 365, 374",
"parenthetical": "on summary judgment plaintiff bears burden of presenting evidence to support complaint's allegations",
"sentence": "See Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.1999) (“Under California law, a plaintiff must meet three conditions to equitably toll a statute of limitations: (1) defendant must have had timely notice of the claim; (2) defendant must not be prejudiced by being required to defend the otherwise barred claim; and (3) plaintiffs conduct must have been reasonable and in good faith.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir.1993) (the burden to plead facts which would give rise to equitable tolling falls upon the plaintiff); Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365, 374 (9th Cir.1998) (on summary judgment plaintiff bears burden of presenting evidence to support complaint’s allegations)."
} | 3,930,659 | a |
Defendants have not, however, asserted any legal grounds to prevent disclosure of joint defense agreements to the court. To the extent that joint defense agreements simply set forth the existence of attorney-client relationships--implied or otherwise--between various attorneys and defendants, the contents of such agreements do not fall within the attorney-client privilege. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "expressing doubt that \"either the existence or the terms of a [joint defense agreement] are privileged\"",
"sentence": "United States v. Bauer, 132 F.3d 504, 508-09 (9th Cir.1997) (attorney-client privilege does not cover the identity of an attorney’s client); see also Hsia, 81 F.Supp.2d at 11 n. 3 (expressing doubt that “either the existence or the terms of a [joint defense agreement] are privileged”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "132 F.3d 504, 508-09",
"parenthetical": "attorney-client privilege does not cover the identity of an attorney's client",
"sentence": "United States v. Bauer, 132 F.3d 504, 508-09 (9th Cir.1997) (attorney-client privilege does not cover the identity of an attorney’s client); see also Hsia, 81 F.Supp.2d at 11 n. 3 (expressing doubt that “either the existence or the terms of a [joint defense agreement] are privileged”)."
} | 9,355,567 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that inmates' Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "821 F.2d 1220, 1226",
"parenthetical": "limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that inmates' Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that inmates' Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "430 F.3d 652, 675-76",
"parenthetical": "recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that inmates' Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "69 F.3d 144, 146",
"parenthetical": "holding that Hudson overruled Bell's assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners' Fourth Amendment rights",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that inmates' Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "962 F.2d 302, 306",
"parenthetical": "erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that \"persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies\"",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that inmates' Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "1988 WL 24978, at *2",
"parenthetical": "ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it \"dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "821 F.2d 1220, 1226",
"parenthetical": "limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "1988 WL 24978, at *2",
"parenthetical": "ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it \"dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "1988 WL 24978, at *2",
"parenthetical": "ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it \"dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "430 F.3d 652, 675-76",
"parenthetical": "recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "1988 WL 24978, at *2",
"parenthetical": "ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it \"dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "1988 WL 24978, at *2",
"parenthetical": "ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it \"dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "69 F.3d 144, 146",
"parenthetical": "holding that Hudson overruled Bell's assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners' Fourth Amendment rights",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "962 F.2d 302, 306",
"parenthetical": "erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that \"persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies\"",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "1988 WL 24978, at *2",
"parenthetical": "ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it \"dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "821 F.2d 1220, 1226",
"parenthetical": "limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "976 F.2d 308, 312",
"parenthetical": "stating that \"prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings\" and citing Hudson and Bell",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "976 F.2d 308, 312",
"parenthetical": "stating that \"prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings\" and citing Hudson and Bell",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "976 F.2d 308, 312",
"parenthetical": "stating that \"prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings\" and citing Hudson and Bell",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "976 F.2d 308, 312",
"parenthetical": "stating that \"prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings\" and citing Hudson and Bell",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "430 F.3d 652, 675-76",
"parenthetical": "recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "976 F.2d 308, 312",
"parenthetical": "stating that \"prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings\" and citing Hudson and Bell",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "69 F.3d 144, 146",
"parenthetical": "holding that Hudson overruled Bell's assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners' Fourth Amendment rights",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "962 F.2d 302, 306",
"parenthetical": "erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that \"persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies\"",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "976 F.2d 308, 312",
"parenthetical": "stating that \"prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings\" and citing Hudson and Bell",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "111 F.3d 694, 699",
"parenthetical": "holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson's broad language",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "821 F.2d 1220, 1226",
"parenthetical": "limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "111 F.3d 694, 699",
"parenthetical": "holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson's broad language",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "111 F.3d 694, 699",
"parenthetical": "holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson's broad language",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "111 F.3d 694, 699",
"parenthetical": "holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson's broad language",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "430 F.3d 652, 675-76",
"parenthetical": "recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "111 F.3d 694, 699",
"parenthetical": "holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson's broad language",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "69 F.3d 144, 146",
"parenthetical": "holding that Hudson overruled Bell's assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners' Fourth Amendment rights",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "111 F.3d 694, 699",
"parenthetical": "holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson's broad language",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "962 F.2d 302, 306",
"parenthetical": "erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that \"persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies\"",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "821 F.2d 1220, 1226",
"parenthetical": "limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "880 F.2d 1188, 1191",
"parenthetical": "holding that even after Hudson, \"the prisoner's privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "880 F.2d 1188, 1191",
"parenthetical": "holding that even after Hudson, \"the prisoner's privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "880 F.2d 1188, 1191",
"parenthetical": "holding that even after Hudson, \"the prisoner's privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "880 F.2d 1188, 1191",
"parenthetical": "holding that even after Hudson, \"the prisoner's privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "430 F.3d 652, 675-76",
"parenthetical": "recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "69 F.3d 144, 146",
"parenthetical": "holding that Hudson overruled Bell's assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners' Fourth Amendment rights",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "880 F.2d 1188, 1191",
"parenthetical": "holding that even after Hudson, \"the prisoner's privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "962 F.2d 302, 306",
"parenthetical": "erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that \"persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies\"",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "880 F.2d 1188, 1191",
"parenthetical": "holding that even after Hudson, \"the prisoner's privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "821 F.2d 1220, 1226",
"parenthetical": "limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "967 F.2d 73, 78",
"parenthetical": "\"While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court's holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "967 F.2d 73, 78",
"parenthetical": "\"While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court's holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "967 F.2d 73, 78",
"parenthetical": "\"While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court's holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "967 F.2d 73, 78",
"parenthetical": "\"While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court's holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "430 F.3d 652, 675-76",
"parenthetical": "recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "967 F.2d 73, 78",
"parenthetical": "\"While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court's holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "69 F.3d 144, 146",
"parenthetical": "holding that Hudson overruled Bell's assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners' Fourth Amendment rights",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "967 F.2d 73, 78",
"parenthetical": "\"While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court's holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.\"",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "962 F.2d 302, 306",
"parenthetical": "erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that \"persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies\"",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "821 F.2d 1220, 1226",
"parenthetical": "limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "69 F.3d 144, 146",
"parenthetical": "holding that Hudson overruled Bell's assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners' Fourth Amendment rights",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "821 F.2d 1220, 1226",
"parenthetical": "limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "962 F.2d 302, 306",
"parenthetical": "erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that \"persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies\"",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "69 F.3d 144, 146",
"parenthetical": "holding that Hudson overruled Bell's assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners' Fourth Amendment rights",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "962 F.2d 302, 306",
"parenthetical": "erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that \"persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies\"",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "69 F.3d 144, 146",
"parenthetical": "holding that Hudson overruled Bell's assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners' Fourth Amendment rights",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "962 F.2d 302, 306",
"parenthetical": "erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that \"persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies\"",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Bell's Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | 4,215,327 | b |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "430 F.3d 652, 675-76",
"parenthetical": "recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "69 F.3d 144, 146",
"parenthetical": "holding that Hudson overruled Bell's assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners' Fourth Amendment rights",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
The majority of circuit courts that have considered the relationship between Hudson and Bell have limited Hudson to cell searches and have held, either explicitly or implicitly, that Hudson did not disturb Bell's Fourth Amendment approach to analyzing the constitutionality of strip searches conducted in custodial settings. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "430 F.3d 652, 675-76",
"parenthetical": "recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment",
"sentence": "See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 n. 3 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that inmates’ Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives Hudson); Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978, at *2 (6th Cir.1988) (ruling Hudson inapplicable in a strip search case because it “dealt with the search of a cell as opposed to the search of an individual”); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir.1992) (stating that “prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings” and citing Hudson and Bell); Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that incarcerated prisoners have Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interests after Hudson and despite Hudson’s broad language); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 1989) (holding that even after Hudson, “the prisoner’s privacy interest in the integrity of his own person is still preserved under [Bell]”); Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73, 78 (2d Cir.1992) (“While we acknowledge the clear teaching of the Supreme Court’s holding in Hudson with respect to prison spaces, we believe that maintenance of prison security is not burdened unduly by the recognition that inmates do retain a limited right to bodily privacy.”); see also Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1226 (6th Cir.1987) (limiting the Hudson holding to prison cells and assessing whether plaintiff prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to her person entitling her to Fourth Amendment protection); Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d 164, 170 & n. 6 (1st Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124 (1st Cir.1988) (applying Bell’s Fourth Amendment analysis to a strip search but denying plaintiffs cell search claim under Hudson); Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 675-76 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing the distinction between Hudson which denied the availability of Fourth Amendment rights as applied to cell searches and Bell which held that the strip searches after contact visits in that case did not violate the Fourth Amendment)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "962 F.2d 302, 306",
"parenthetical": "erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that \"persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies\"",
"sentence": "But see Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Hudson overruled Bell’s assumption and abrogated convicted prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights); Jones v. Murray, 962 F.2d 302, 306 (4th Cir.1992) (erroneously attributing to Bell the holding that “persons lawfully arrested on probable cause and detained lose a right of privacy from routine searches of the cavities of their bodies”)."
} | 4,215,327 | a |
Of course, Bituminous cannot establish subject matter jurisdiction by citing to either SS 1331 or SS 1332 alone. Bituminous must also plead a cause of action to establish subject matter jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "3 F.3d 945, 950-51",
"parenthetical": "noting that a plaintiff must plead a cause of action to satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Bush v. State Indus., Inc., 599 F.2d 780, 784-85 (6th Cir.1979) (right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an essential element of the plaintiffs cause of action to bring a case within § 1331); see also Jones v. City of Carlisle, 3 F.3d 945, 950-51 (6th Cir.1993) (noting that a plaintiff must plead a cause of action to satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "599 F.2d 780, 784-85",
"parenthetical": "right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an essential element of the plaintiffs cause of action to bring a case within SS 1331",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Bush v. State Indus., Inc., 599 F.2d 780, 784-85 (6th Cir.1979) (right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an essential element of the plaintiffs cause of action to bring a case within § 1331); see also Jones v. City of Carlisle, 3 F.3d 945, 950-51 (6th Cir.1993) (noting that a plaintiff must plead a cause of action to satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction)."
} | 3,674,689 | b |
Indeed, the district court noted the vigor with which defense counsel requested a jury trial and the timeliness of plaintiffs' counsel's exception to the court's ruling. Plaintiffs were not required to walk out of the courtroom rather than to proceed with the bench trial in order to preserve their right to claim on appeal that they had been denied the jury trial that had been demanded. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "failure to raise jury demand issue explicitly in subsequent proceedings does not constitute waiver",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Palmer v. United States, 652 F.2d 893, 896 (9th Cir.1981) (“[A] party’s acquiescence to the district court’s maintenance of a bench trial, without more, is insufficient to establish a withdrawal of a jury demand.”); see also DeGioia v. United States Lines Co., 304 F.2d 421, 424 n. 1 (2d Cir.1962) (failure to raise jury demand issue explicitly in subsequent proceedings does not constitute waiver); EEOC v. Corry Jamestown Corp., 719 F.2d 1219, 1225 (3d Cir.1983) (failure to seek mandamus or interlocutory appeal of court’s striking of jury demand does not constitute waiver)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "652 F.2d 893, 896",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] party's acquiescence to the district court's maintenance of a bench trial, without more, is insufficient to establish a withdrawal of a jury demand.\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Palmer v. United States, 652 F.2d 893, 896 (9th Cir.1981) (“[A] party’s acquiescence to the district court’s maintenance of a bench trial, without more, is insufficient to establish a withdrawal of a jury demand.”); see also DeGioia v. United States Lines Co., 304 F.2d 421, 424 n. 1 (2d Cir.1962) (failure to raise jury demand issue explicitly in subsequent proceedings does not constitute waiver); EEOC v. Corry Jamestown Corp., 719 F.2d 1219, 1225 (3d Cir.1983) (failure to seek mandamus or interlocutory appeal of court’s striking of jury demand does not constitute waiver)."
} | 361,177 | b |
Indeed, the district court noted the vigor with which defense counsel requested a jury trial and the timeliness of plaintiffs' counsel's exception to the court's ruling. Plaintiffs were not required to walk out of the courtroom rather than to proceed with the bench trial in order to preserve their right to claim on appeal that they had been denied the jury trial that had been demanded. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "652 F.2d 893, 896",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] party's acquiescence to the district court's maintenance of a bench trial, without more, is insufficient to establish a withdrawal of a jury demand.\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Palmer v. United States, 652 F.2d 893, 896 (9th Cir.1981) (“[A] party’s acquiescence to the district court’s maintenance of a bench trial, without more, is insufficient to establish a withdrawal of a jury demand.”); see also DeGioia v. United States Lines Co., 304 F.2d 421, 424 n. 1 (2d Cir.1962) (failure to raise jury demand issue explicitly in subsequent proceedings does not constitute waiver); EEOC v. Corry Jamestown Corp., 719 F.2d 1219, 1225 (3d Cir.1983) (failure to seek mandamus or interlocutory appeal of court’s striking of jury demand does not constitute waiver)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "719 F.2d 1219, 1225",
"parenthetical": "failure to seek mandamus or interlocutory appeal of court's striking of jury demand does not constitute waiver",
"sentence": "See, e.g., Palmer v. United States, 652 F.2d 893, 896 (9th Cir.1981) (“[A] party’s acquiescence to the district court’s maintenance of a bench trial, without more, is insufficient to establish a withdrawal of a jury demand.”); see also DeGioia v. United States Lines Co., 304 F.2d 421, 424 n. 1 (2d Cir.1962) (failure to raise jury demand issue explicitly in subsequent proceedings does not constitute waiver); EEOC v. Corry Jamestown Corp., 719 F.2d 1219, 1225 (3d Cir.1983) (failure to seek mandamus or interlocutory appeal of court’s striking of jury demand does not constitute waiver)."
} | 361,177 | a |
Other cases have looked to the plaintiffs behavior, relationship with the alleged harasses and history with the company to conclude the plaintiff could not prove the conduct was unwelcome. See, e.g., Scusa v. Nestle U.S.A. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "488 F.3d 739, 746-47",
"parenthetical": "addressing qn evidentiary dispute and noting that, although a preexisting relationship by no means nullifies otherwise actionable harassment, \"the existence of a current or former social relationship between the harasser and the harassee can shed light on such relevant questions as whether the complained-of conduct was unwelcome\"",
"sentence": "Co., 181 F.3d 958, 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1999) (deciding there was insufficient proof where the plaintiff'“engaged in behavior similar to that which she claimed was unwelcome and offensive,” despite timely complaints and journal entries indicating certain behaviors were unwelcome); Souther, 523 Fed.Appx. at 355 (concluding the conduct was not unwelcome based, in part, on the plaintiffs conduct, the fact she continued to return to the company for work, and her almost thirty-year relationship with the alleged harasser including consensual sex during some of that time); see also Ammons-Lewis v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi., 488 F.3d 739, 746-47 (7th Cir. 2007) (addressing qn evidentiary dispute and noting that, although a preexisting relationship by no means nullifies otherwise actionable harassment, “the existence of a current or former social relationship between the harasser and the harassee can shed light on such relevant questions as whether the complained-of conduct was unwelcome”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "181 F.3d 958, 962, 966",
"parenthetical": "deciding there was insufficient proof where the plaintiff'\"engaged in behavior similar to that which she claimed was unwelcome and offensive,\" despite timely complaints and journal entries indicating certain behaviors were unwelcome",
"sentence": "Co., 181 F.3d 958, 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1999) (deciding there was insufficient proof where the plaintiff'“engaged in behavior similar to that which she claimed was unwelcome and offensive,” despite timely complaints and journal entries indicating certain behaviors were unwelcome); Souther, 523 Fed.Appx. at 355 (concluding the conduct was not unwelcome based, in part, on the plaintiffs conduct, the fact she continued to return to the company for work, and her almost thirty-year relationship with the alleged harasser including consensual sex during some of that time); see also Ammons-Lewis v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi., 488 F.3d 739, 746-47 (7th Cir. 2007) (addressing qn evidentiary dispute and noting that, although a preexisting relationship by no means nullifies otherwise actionable harassment, “the existence of a current or former social relationship between the harasser and the harassee can shed light on such relevant questions as whether the complained-of conduct was unwelcome”)."
} | 12,275,374 | b |
Other cases have looked to the plaintiffs behavior, relationship with the alleged harasses and history with the company to conclude the plaintiff could not prove the conduct was unwelcome. See, e.g., Scusa v. Nestle U.S.A. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "488 F.3d 739, 746-47",
"parenthetical": "addressing qn evidentiary dispute and noting that, although a preexisting relationship by no means nullifies otherwise actionable harassment, \"the existence of a current or former social relationship between the harasser and the harassee can shed light on such relevant questions as whether the complained-of conduct was unwelcome\"",
"sentence": "Co., 181 F.3d 958, 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1999) (deciding there was insufficient proof where the plaintiff'“engaged in behavior similar to that which she claimed was unwelcome and offensive,” despite timely complaints and journal entries indicating certain behaviors were unwelcome); Souther, 523 Fed.Appx. at 355 (concluding the conduct was not unwelcome based, in part, on the plaintiffs conduct, the fact she continued to return to the company for work, and her almost thirty-year relationship with the alleged harasser including consensual sex during some of that time); see also Ammons-Lewis v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi., 488 F.3d 739, 746-47 (7th Cir. 2007) (addressing qn evidentiary dispute and noting that, although a preexisting relationship by no means nullifies otherwise actionable harassment, “the existence of a current or former social relationship between the harasser and the harassee can shed light on such relevant questions as whether the complained-of conduct was unwelcome”)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "523 Fed.Appx. 355, 355",
"parenthetical": "concluding the conduct was not unwelcome based, in part, on the plaintiffs conduct, the fact she continued to return to the company for work, and her almost thirty-year relationship with the alleged harasser including consensual sex during some of that time",
"sentence": "Co., 181 F.3d 958, 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1999) (deciding there was insufficient proof where the plaintiff'“engaged in behavior similar to that which she claimed was unwelcome and offensive,” despite timely complaints and journal entries indicating certain behaviors were unwelcome); Souther, 523 Fed.Appx. at 355 (concluding the conduct was not unwelcome based, in part, on the plaintiffs conduct, the fact she continued to return to the company for work, and her almost thirty-year relationship with the alleged harasser including consensual sex during some of that time); see also Ammons-Lewis v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi., 488 F.3d 739, 746-47 (7th Cir. 2007) (addressing qn evidentiary dispute and noting that, although a preexisting relationship by no means nullifies otherwise actionable harassment, “the existence of a current or former social relationship between the harasser and the harassee can shed light on such relevant questions as whether the complained-of conduct was unwelcome”)."
} | 12,275,374 | b |
The District claims that the relief Plaintiffs request would essentially reinstate Sections II and III of the Settlement Order.' This, the District contends, would deprive it of the sunset provisions that it had negotiated in Section II and substitute for a foregone appeal with respect to Section III. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "76 F.3d 76, 81",
"parenthetical": "\"If we were to enforce this consent decree against Local 40 twelve years after its expiration, we would be depriving the union of the benefit of its bargain.\"",
"sentence": "See EEOC v. Local 40, 76 F.3d 76, 81 (2d Cir.1996) (“If we were to enforce this consent decree against Local 40 twelve years after its expiration, we would be depriving the union of the benefit of its bargain.”); cf. Twelve John Does, 841 F.2d at 1141 (“Indeed, it is a commonplace that Rule 60(b)(6) may not be used as a substitute for an appeal not taken.”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "841 F.2d 1141, 1141",
"parenthetical": "\"Indeed, it is a commonplace that Rule 60(b)(6) may not be used as a substitute for an appeal not taken.\"",
"sentence": "See EEOC v. Local 40, 76 F.3d 76, 81 (2d Cir.1996) (“If we were to enforce this consent decree against Local 40 twelve years after its expiration, we would be depriving the union of the benefit of its bargain.”); cf. Twelve John Does, 841 F.2d at 1141 (“Indeed, it is a commonplace that Rule 60(b)(6) may not be used as a substitute for an appeal not taken.”)."
} | 4,355,106 | a |
A review of other Massachusetts cases relied upon by the court reveals that a mere statement that a "controlled buy" occurred has never been enough to save an affidavit that otherwise fails to show the informant's veracity. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where the affidavit in the record stated that police \"checked [informant's person before controlled buy] for any controlled substances, contraband, and monies,\" furnished informant with money to make purchase, and recorded serial numbers of those bills",
"sentence": "See Commonwealth v. Luna, 410 Mass. 131 (1991) (where the affidavit in the record stated that police “checked [informant’s person before controlled buy] for any controlled substances, contraband, and monies,” furnished informant with money to make purchase, and recorded serial numbers of those bills); Commonwealth v. Tshudy, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 955, 956 (1993) (affidavit stated that police had searched informant before the controlled buy and found no drugs on his person, and that police gave informant money to make purchase); Commonwealth v. Benlien, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 834, 838 (1989) (affidavit stated that police had searched informant before the controlled buy and found no narcotics or money on informant’s person, provided informant with money to make purchase, and observed informant enter and leave defendant’s apartment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "983 F.2d 1160, 1166-1167",
"parenthetical": "affidavit \"fully described the 'controlled buy,' \" stating that police searched informant before and after buy and found no contraband on his person, gave informant a sum of United States currency to make purchase, and observed informant enter and exit building",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Garcia, 983 F.2d 1160, 1166-1167 (1st Cir. 1993) (affidavit “fully described the ‘controlled buy,’ ” stating that police searched informant before and after buy and found no contraband on his person, gave informant a sum of United States currency to make purchase, and observed informant enter and exit building)."
} | 823,740 | a |
A review of other Massachusetts cases relied upon by the court reveals that a mere statement that a "controlled buy" occurred has never been enough to save an affidavit that otherwise fails to show the informant's veracity. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "34 Mass. App. Ct. 955, 956",
"parenthetical": "affidavit stated that police had searched informant before the controlled buy and found no drugs on his person, and that police gave informant money to make purchase",
"sentence": "See Commonwealth v. Luna, 410 Mass. 131 (1991) (where the affidavit in the record stated that police “checked [informant’s person before controlled buy] for any controlled substances, contraband, and monies,” furnished informant with money to make purchase, and recorded serial numbers of those bills); Commonwealth v. Tshudy, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 955, 956 (1993) (affidavit stated that police had searched informant before the controlled buy and found no drugs on his person, and that police gave informant money to make purchase); Commonwealth v. Benlien, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 834, 838 (1989) (affidavit stated that police had searched informant before the controlled buy and found no narcotics or money on informant’s person, provided informant with money to make purchase, and observed informant enter and leave defendant’s apartment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "983 F.2d 1160, 1166-1167",
"parenthetical": "affidavit \"fully described the 'controlled buy,' \" stating that police searched informant before and after buy and found no contraband on his person, gave informant a sum of United States currency to make purchase, and observed informant enter and exit building",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Garcia, 983 F.2d 1160, 1166-1167 (1st Cir. 1993) (affidavit “fully described the ‘controlled buy,’ ” stating that police searched informant before and after buy and found no contraband on his person, gave informant a sum of United States currency to make purchase, and observed informant enter and exit building)."
} | 823,740 | a |
A review of other Massachusetts cases relied upon by the court reveals that a mere statement that a "controlled buy" occurred has never been enough to save an affidavit that otherwise fails to show the informant's veracity. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "983 F.2d 1160, 1166-1167",
"parenthetical": "affidavit \"fully described the 'controlled buy,' \" stating that police searched informant before and after buy and found no contraband on his person, gave informant a sum of United States currency to make purchase, and observed informant enter and exit building",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Garcia, 983 F.2d 1160, 1166-1167 (1st Cir. 1993) (affidavit “fully described the ‘controlled buy,’ ” stating that police searched informant before and after buy and found no contraband on his person, gave informant a sum of United States currency to make purchase, and observed informant enter and exit building)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "27 Mass. App. Ct. 834, 838",
"parenthetical": "affidavit stated that police had searched informant before the controlled buy and found no narcotics or money on informant's person, provided informant with money to make purchase, and observed informant enter and leave defendant's apartment",
"sentence": "See Commonwealth v. Luna, 410 Mass. 131 (1991) (where the affidavit in the record stated that police “checked [informant’s person before controlled buy] for any controlled substances, contraband, and monies,” furnished informant with money to make purchase, and recorded serial numbers of those bills); Commonwealth v. Tshudy, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 955, 956 (1993) (affidavit stated that police had searched informant before the controlled buy and found no drugs on his person, and that police gave informant money to make purchase); Commonwealth v. Benlien, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 834, 838 (1989) (affidavit stated that police had searched informant before the controlled buy and found no narcotics or money on informant’s person, provided informant with money to make purchase, and observed informant enter and leave defendant’s apartment)."
} | 823,740 | b |
In contrast to his current arguments about the district court's questions, Flying By made only a single objection to them at trial. Timely objections are important so that any error or misunderstanding can be clarified at the trial. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "994 F.2d 1287, 1294",
"parenthetical": "issue is preserved for appeal through timely objection and clearly stated grounds for the objection so that trial court can prevent or correct the error",
"sentence": "United States v. Williams, 994 F.2d 1287, 1294 (8th Cir.1993) (issue is preserved for appeal through timely objection and clearly stated grounds for the objection so that trial court can prevent or correct the error); see also United States v. Filker, 972 F.2d 240, 242 (8th Cir.1992) (“This court will not reverse a district court on an issue that is raised for the first time unless a gross miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "972 F.2d 240, 242",
"parenthetical": "\"This court will not reverse a district court on an issue that is raised for the first time unless a gross miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.\"",
"sentence": "United States v. Williams, 994 F.2d 1287, 1294 (8th Cir.1993) (issue is preserved for appeal through timely objection and clearly stated grounds for the objection so that trial court can prevent or correct the error); see also United States v. Filker, 972 F.2d 240, 242 (8th Cir.1992) (“This court will not reverse a district court on an issue that is raised for the first time unless a gross miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.”)."
} | 4,067,250 | a |
Plaintiffs' sole basis for arguing that Connecticut law should govern is that Pfizer performed research and development with respect to Trovan and planned the Nigerian experiment in Connecticut. (Transcript of Oral Argument, dated Oct. 21, 2005, at 17-21.) However, this sole contact with Connecticut is insufficient to defeat the Nigerian interest in applying its own laws. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "721 F.Supp. 403, 404-05",
"parenthetical": "holding that under lex loci delecti, Georgia law applies because \"plaintiffs live[d] in Georgia, the gun in question was kept in Georgia, and the injury occurred in Georgia, even though the defendant's principal place of business was Southport, Connecticut\", and the \"handgun in question was manufactured by the defendant in Connecticut\"",
"sentence": "See Feldt v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 721 F.Supp. 403, 404-05 (D.Conn.1989) (holding that under lex loci delecti, Georgia law applies because “plaintiffs live[d] in Georgia, the gun in question was kept in Georgia, and the injury occurred in Georgia, even though the defendant’s principal place of business was Southport, Connecticut”, and the “handgun in question was manufactured by the defendant in Connecticut”); see also N. Tankers Ltd., 934 F.Supp. at 39-40 (“[Application of New York law here would be neither irrational nor arbitrary,” or “produce an arbitrary or irrational result” because “[t]he place of the injury ... is New York,” and “alleged damages ... were incurred in New York.”); Icelandic Coast, 722 F.Supp. at 948."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "934 F.Supp. 39, 39-40",
"parenthetical": "\"[Application of New York law here would be neither irrational nor arbitrary,\" or \"produce an arbitrary or irrational result\" because \"[t]he place of the injury ... is New York,\" and \"alleged damages ... were incurred in New York.\"",
"sentence": "See Feldt v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 721 F.Supp. 403, 404-05 (D.Conn.1989) (holding that under lex loci delecti, Georgia law applies because “plaintiffs live[d] in Georgia, the gun in question was kept in Georgia, and the injury occurred in Georgia, even though the defendant’s principal place of business was Southport, Connecticut”, and the “handgun in question was manufactured by the defendant in Connecticut”); see also N. Tankers Ltd., 934 F.Supp. at 39-40 (“[Application of New York law here would be neither irrational nor arbitrary,” or “produce an arbitrary or irrational result” because “[t]he place of the injury ... is New York,” and “alleged damages ... were incurred in New York.”); Icelandic Coast, 722 F.Supp. at 948."
} | 1,584,919 | a |
The record demonstrates that none -- let alone, as required, all -- of the legal prerequisites for the order now under review granting Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) relief from a default final judgment duly entered against appellees has been satisfied. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that a five week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was \"entirely inexcusable\"",
"sentence": "See Lazcar Int'l Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“For a trial court to grant a motion to set aside a default final judgment, the moving party must show three things: (1) the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default.”), review denied, 969 So.2d 1011 (Fla.2007); Geer v. Jacobsen, 880 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (A meritorious defense “must be asserted either by a pleading or in an affidavit, and a general denial is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.”); Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding that a seven-week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was unreasonable); Herrick v. Se. Bank, 512 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (holding that excusable neglect cannot arise from negligence of counsel); see also Fischer v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., 511 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (finding that a five week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was “entirely inexcusable”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "957 So.2d 1191, 1192",
"parenthetical": "\"For a trial court to grant a motion to set aside a default final judgment, the moving party must show three things: (1",
"sentence": "See Lazcar Int'l Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“For a trial court to grant a motion to set aside a default final judgment, the moving party must show three things: (1) the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default.”), review denied, 969 So.2d 1011 (Fla.2007); Geer v. Jacobsen, 880 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (A meritorious defense “must be asserted either by a pleading or in an affidavit, and a general denial is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.”); Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding that a seven-week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was unreasonable); Herrick v. Se. Bank, 512 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (holding that excusable neglect cannot arise from negligence of counsel); see also Fischer v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., 511 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (finding that a five week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was “entirely inexcusable”)."
} | 7,018,965 | b |
The record demonstrates that none -- let alone, as required, all -- of the legal prerequisites for the order now under review granting Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) relief from a default final judgment duly entered against appellees has been satisfied. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that a five week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was \"entirely inexcusable\"",
"sentence": "See Lazcar Int'l Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“For a trial court to grant a motion to set aside a default final judgment, the moving party must show three things: (1) the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default.”), review denied, 969 So.2d 1011 (Fla.2007); Geer v. Jacobsen, 880 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (A meritorious defense “must be asserted either by a pleading or in an affidavit, and a general denial is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.”); Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding that a seven-week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was unreasonable); Herrick v. Se. Bank, 512 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (holding that excusable neglect cannot arise from negligence of counsel); see also Fischer v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., 511 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (finding that a five week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was “entirely inexcusable”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "880 So.2d 717, 721",
"parenthetical": "A meritorious defense \"must be asserted either by a pleading or in an affidavit, and a general denial is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.\"",
"sentence": "See Lazcar Int'l Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“For a trial court to grant a motion to set aside a default final judgment, the moving party must show three things: (1) the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default.”), review denied, 969 So.2d 1011 (Fla.2007); Geer v. Jacobsen, 880 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (A meritorious defense “must be asserted either by a pleading or in an affidavit, and a general denial is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.”); Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding that a seven-week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was unreasonable); Herrick v. Se. Bank, 512 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (holding that excusable neglect cannot arise from negligence of counsel); see also Fischer v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., 511 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (finding that a five week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was “entirely inexcusable”)."
} | 7,018,965 | b |
The record demonstrates that none -- let alone, as required, all -- of the legal prerequisites for the order now under review granting Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) relief from a default final judgment duly entered against appellees has been satisfied. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that a five week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was \"entirely inexcusable\"",
"sentence": "See Lazcar Int'l Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“For a trial court to grant a motion to set aside a default final judgment, the moving party must show three things: (1) the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default.”), review denied, 969 So.2d 1011 (Fla.2007); Geer v. Jacobsen, 880 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (A meritorious defense “must be asserted either by a pleading or in an affidavit, and a general denial is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.”); Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding that a seven-week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was unreasonable); Herrick v. Se. Bank, 512 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (holding that excusable neglect cannot arise from negligence of counsel); see also Fischer v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., 511 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (finding that a five week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was “entirely inexcusable”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that a seven-week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was unreasonable",
"sentence": "See Lazcar Int'l Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“For a trial court to grant a motion to set aside a default final judgment, the moving party must show three things: (1) the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default.”), review denied, 969 So.2d 1011 (Fla.2007); Geer v. Jacobsen, 880 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (A meritorious defense “must be asserted either by a pleading or in an affidavit, and a general denial is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.”); Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding that a seven-week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was unreasonable); Herrick v. Se. Bank, 512 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (holding that excusable neglect cannot arise from negligence of counsel); see also Fischer v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., 511 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (finding that a five week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was “entirely inexcusable”)."
} | 7,018,965 | b |
The record demonstrates that none -- let alone, as required, all -- of the legal prerequisites for the order now under review granting Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) relief from a default final judgment duly entered against appellees has been satisfied. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that excusable neglect cannot arise from negligence of counsel",
"sentence": "See Lazcar Int'l Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“For a trial court to grant a motion to set aside a default final judgment, the moving party must show three things: (1) the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default.”), review denied, 969 So.2d 1011 (Fla.2007); Geer v. Jacobsen, 880 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (A meritorious defense “must be asserted either by a pleading or in an affidavit, and a general denial is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.”); Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding that a seven-week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was unreasonable); Herrick v. Se. Bank, 512 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (holding that excusable neglect cannot arise from negligence of counsel); see also Fischer v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., 511 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (finding that a five week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was “entirely inexcusable”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding that a five week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was \"entirely inexcusable\"",
"sentence": "See Lazcar Int'l Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“For a trial court to grant a motion to set aside a default final judgment, the moving party must show three things: (1) the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default.”), review denied, 969 So.2d 1011 (Fla.2007); Geer v. Jacobsen, 880 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (A meritorious defense “must be asserted either by a pleading or in an affidavit, and a general denial is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.”); Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding that a seven-week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was unreasonable); Herrick v. Se. Bank, 512 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (holding that excusable neglect cannot arise from negligence of counsel); see also Fischer v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., 511 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (finding that a five week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was “entirely inexcusable”)."
} | 7,018,965 | a |
"When the district court has affirmed the bankruptcy court's findings ... we will apply the clearly erroneous doctrine with particular rigor." Additionally, when we examine the facts adduced at trial, generally we will not disturb a bankruptcy court's credibility determinations. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "95 F.3d 1028, 1030",
"parenthetical": "requiring a reviewing court to \"give due regard\" to a bankruptcy court's credibility judgments",
"sentence": "See In re Englander, 95 F.3d 1028, 1030 (11th Cir.1996) (requiring a reviewing court to “give due regard” to a bankruptcy court’s credibility judgments); see also United States v. Peters, 403 F.3d 1263, 1270 (11th Cir.2005) (recognizing that “[assessing witness credibility is uniquely the function of the trier of fact”). Here, to the extent the appellants dispute the relevant facts, they rely exclusively on evidence drawn from their own testimony, which the bankruptcy judge expressly disbelieved."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "403 F.3d 1263, 1270",
"parenthetical": "recognizing that \"[assessing witness credibility is uniquely the function of the trier of fact\"",
"sentence": "See In re Englander, 95 F.3d 1028, 1030 (11th Cir.1996) (requiring a reviewing court to “give due regard” to a bankruptcy court’s credibility judgments); see also United States v. Peters, 403 F.3d 1263, 1270 (11th Cir.2005) (recognizing that “[assessing witness credibility is uniquely the function of the trier of fact”). Here, to the extent the appellants dispute the relevant facts, they rely exclusively on evidence drawn from their own testimony, which the bankruptcy judge expressly disbelieved."
} | 4,071,383 | a |
"[A]cts of ... private contractors do not become acts of the government by reason of their significant or even total engagement in performing public contracts." Moreover, even assuming that the funds HIH received from CCADV are properly characterized as "state funds," the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that government funding of a private entity, no matter how extensive, is insufficient in and of itself to establish state action. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "457 U.S. 991, 1011",
"parenthetical": "no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes",
"sentence": "See Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 840, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor); see also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "457 U.S. 840, 840",
"parenthetical": "a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor",
"sentence": "See Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 840, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor); see also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes)."
} | 9,280,486 | b |
"[A]cts of ... private contractors do not become acts of the government by reason of their significant or even total engagement in performing public contracts." Moreover, even assuming that the funds HIH received from CCADV are properly characterized as "state funds," the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that government funding of a private entity, no matter how extensive, is insufficient in and of itself to establish state action. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "457 U.S. 840, 840",
"parenthetical": "a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor",
"sentence": "See Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 840, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor); see also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes",
"sentence": "See Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 840, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor); see also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes)."
} | 9,280,486 | a |
"[A]cts of ... private contractors do not become acts of the government by reason of their significant or even total engagement in performing public contracts." Moreover, even assuming that the funds HIH received from CCADV are properly characterized as "state funds," the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that government funding of a private entity, no matter how extensive, is insufficient in and of itself to establish state action. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "457 U.S. 840, 840",
"parenthetical": "a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor",
"sentence": "See Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 840, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor); see also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes",
"sentence": "See Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 840, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor); see also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes)."
} | 9,280,486 | a |
"[A]cts of ... private contractors do not become acts of the government by reason of their significant or even total engagement in performing public contracts." Moreover, even assuming that the funds HIH received from CCADV are properly characterized as "state funds," the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that government funding of a private entity, no matter how extensive, is insufficient in and of itself to establish state action. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor",
"sentence": "See Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 840, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor); see also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "457 U.S. 991, 1011",
"parenthetical": "no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes",
"sentence": "See Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 840, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor); see also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes)."
} | 9,280,486 | a |
"[A]cts of ... private contractors do not become acts of the government by reason of their significant or even total engagement in performing public contracts." Moreover, even assuming that the funds HIH received from CCADV are properly characterized as "state funds," the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that government funding of a private entity, no matter how extensive, is insufficient in and of itself to establish state action. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes",
"sentence": "See Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 840, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor); see also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor",
"sentence": "See Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 840, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor); see also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes)."
} | 9,280,486 | b |
"[A]cts of ... private contractors do not become acts of the government by reason of their significant or even total engagement in performing public contracts." Moreover, even assuming that the funds HIH received from CCADV are properly characterized as "state funds," the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that government funding of a private entity, no matter how extensive, is insufficient in and of itself to establish state action. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor",
"sentence": "See Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 840, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor); see also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes",
"sentence": "See Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 840, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (a private school receiving 90% of its operating budget from public funds was not deemed a state actor); see also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1011, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (no state action even though state paid the medical expenses of more than 90% of the patients and subsidized the operating and capital costs of the nursing homes)."
} | 9,280,486 | a |
This limited contact with a single District customer -- unrelated to the plaintiffs or their claims -- does not support the district court's exercise of general jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "75 F.3d 668, 675",
"parenthetical": "\"isolated and sporadic contacts unrelated to the claims in the instant case\" insufficient to establish general jurisdiction",
"sentence": "See El-Fadl v. Cent. Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 675 (D.C.Cir.1996) (“isolated and sporadic contacts unrelated to the claims in the instant case” insufficient to establish general jurisdiction); cf. Pacas v. Showell Farms, Inc., 83 F.3d 415, 1996 WL 192058, at *2 (4th Cir.1996) (unpublished) (“sales to a single customer ... does not constitute the requisite minimum contacts necessary to satisfy ‘fair play and substantial justice’ and to establish general jurisdiction for a suit not related to the sale of that product”); Atlantigas, 290 F.Supp.2d at 53 (exercising general jurisdiction over foreign corporation with only three District customers would “stretch the concept of general jurisdiction beyond what either the [long-arm] statute or due process permits”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"sales to a single customer ... does not constitute the requisite minimum contacts necessary to satisfy 'fair play and substantial justice' and to establish general jurisdiction for a suit not related to the sale of that product\"",
"sentence": "See El-Fadl v. Cent. Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 675 (D.C.Cir.1996) (“isolated and sporadic contacts unrelated to the claims in the instant case” insufficient to establish general jurisdiction); cf. Pacas v. Showell Farms, Inc., 83 F.3d 415, 1996 WL 192058, at *2 (4th Cir.1996) (unpublished) (“sales to a single customer ... does not constitute the requisite minimum contacts necessary to satisfy ‘fair play and substantial justice’ and to establish general jurisdiction for a suit not related to the sale of that product”); Atlantigas, 290 F.Supp.2d at 53 (exercising general jurisdiction over foreign corporation with only three District customers would “stretch the concept of general jurisdiction beyond what either the [long-arm] statute or due process permits”)."
} | 3,570,599 | a |
This limited contact with a single District customer -- unrelated to the plaintiffs or their claims -- does not support the district court's exercise of general jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "1996 WL 192058, at *2",
"parenthetical": "\"sales to a single customer ... does not constitute the requisite minimum contacts necessary to satisfy 'fair play and substantial justice' and to establish general jurisdiction for a suit not related to the sale of that product\"",
"sentence": "See El-Fadl v. Cent. Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 675 (D.C.Cir.1996) (“isolated and sporadic contacts unrelated to the claims in the instant case” insufficient to establish general jurisdiction); cf. Pacas v. Showell Farms, Inc., 83 F.3d 415, 1996 WL 192058, at *2 (4th Cir.1996) (unpublished) (“sales to a single customer ... does not constitute the requisite minimum contacts necessary to satisfy ‘fair play and substantial justice’ and to establish general jurisdiction for a suit not related to the sale of that product”); Atlantigas, 290 F.Supp.2d at 53 (exercising general jurisdiction over foreign corporation with only three District customers would “stretch the concept of general jurisdiction beyond what either the [long-arm] statute or due process permits”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "75 F.3d 668, 675",
"parenthetical": "\"isolated and sporadic contacts unrelated to the claims in the instant case\" insufficient to establish general jurisdiction",
"sentence": "See El-Fadl v. Cent. Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 675 (D.C.Cir.1996) (“isolated and sporadic contacts unrelated to the claims in the instant case” insufficient to establish general jurisdiction); cf. Pacas v. Showell Farms, Inc., 83 F.3d 415, 1996 WL 192058, at *2 (4th Cir.1996) (unpublished) (“sales to a single customer ... does not constitute the requisite minimum contacts necessary to satisfy ‘fair play and substantial justice’ and to establish general jurisdiction for a suit not related to the sale of that product”); Atlantigas, 290 F.Supp.2d at 53 (exercising general jurisdiction over foreign corporation with only three District customers would “stretch the concept of general jurisdiction beyond what either the [long-arm] statute or due process permits”)."
} | 3,570,599 | b |
This limited contact with a single District customer -- unrelated to the plaintiffs or their claims -- does not support the district court's exercise of general jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "75 F.3d 668, 675",
"parenthetical": "\"isolated and sporadic contacts unrelated to the claims in the instant case\" insufficient to establish general jurisdiction",
"sentence": "See El-Fadl v. Cent. Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 675 (D.C.Cir.1996) (“isolated and sporadic contacts unrelated to the claims in the instant case” insufficient to establish general jurisdiction); cf. Pacas v. Showell Farms, Inc., 83 F.3d 415, 1996 WL 192058, at *2 (4th Cir.1996) (unpublished) (“sales to a single customer ... does not constitute the requisite minimum contacts necessary to satisfy ‘fair play and substantial justice’ and to establish general jurisdiction for a suit not related to the sale of that product”); Atlantigas, 290 F.Supp.2d at 53 (exercising general jurisdiction over foreign corporation with only three District customers would “stretch the concept of general jurisdiction beyond what either the [long-arm] statute or due process permits”)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "290 F.Supp.2d 53, 53",
"parenthetical": "exercising general jurisdiction over foreign corporation with only three District customers would \"stretch the concept of general jurisdiction beyond what either the [long-arm] statute or due process permits\"",
"sentence": "See El-Fadl v. Cent. Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 675 (D.C.Cir.1996) (“isolated and sporadic contacts unrelated to the claims in the instant case” insufficient to establish general jurisdiction); cf. Pacas v. Showell Farms, Inc., 83 F.3d 415, 1996 WL 192058, at *2 (4th Cir.1996) (unpublished) (“sales to a single customer ... does not constitute the requisite minimum contacts necessary to satisfy ‘fair play and substantial justice’ and to establish general jurisdiction for a suit not related to the sale of that product”); Atlantigas, 290 F.Supp.2d at 53 (exercising general jurisdiction over foreign corporation with only three District customers would “stretch the concept of general jurisdiction beyond what either the [long-arm] statute or due process permits”)."
} | 3,570,599 | a |
We must next consider whether Micklus' pro se complaint states a cause of action for damages arising out of the constitution. The Supreme Court has implied a cause of action directly under the constitution and permitted the remedy of damages in two cases. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit",
"sentence": "See also, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "for violation of fifth amendment's due process clause and its equal protection assurance",
"sentence": "Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979) (for violation of fifth amendment’s due process clause and its equal protection assurance); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (for violation of fourth amendment rights)."
} | 1,417,346 | b |
We must next consider whether Micklus' pro se complaint states a cause of action for damages arising out of the constitution. The Supreme Court has implied a cause of action directly under the constitution and permitted the remedy of damages in two cases. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "for violation of fifth amendment's due process clause and its equal protection assurance",
"sentence": "Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979) (for violation of fifth amendment’s due process clause and its equal protection assurance); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (for violation of fourth amendment rights)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit",
"sentence": "See also, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit)."
} | 1,417,346 | a |
We must next consider whether Micklus' pro se complaint states a cause of action for damages arising out of the constitution. The Supreme Court has implied a cause of action directly under the constitution and permitted the remedy of damages in two cases. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit",
"sentence": "See also, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "for violation of fifth amendment's due process clause and its equal protection assurance",
"sentence": "Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979) (for violation of fifth amendment’s due process clause and its equal protection assurance); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (for violation of fourth amendment rights)."
} | 1,417,346 | b |
We must next consider whether Micklus' pro se complaint states a cause of action for damages arising out of the constitution. The Supreme Court has implied a cause of action directly under the constitution and permitted the remedy of damages in two cases. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "for violation of fifth amendment's due process clause and its equal protection assurance",
"sentence": "Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979) (for violation of fifth amendment’s due process clause and its equal protection assurance); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (for violation of fourth amendment rights)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit",
"sentence": "See also, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit)."
} | 1,417,346 | a |
We must next consider whether Micklus' pro se complaint states a cause of action for damages arising out of the constitution. The Supreme Court has implied a cause of action directly under the constitution and permitted the remedy of damages in two cases. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "for violation of fifth amendment's due process clause and its equal protection assurance",
"sentence": "Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979) (for violation of fifth amendment’s due process clause and its equal protection assurance); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (for violation of fourth amendment rights)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit",
"sentence": "See also, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit)."
} | 1,417,346 | a |
We must next consider whether Micklus' pro se complaint states a cause of action for damages arising out of the constitution. The Supreme Court has implied a cause of action directly under the constitution and permitted the remedy of damages in two cases. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit",
"sentence": "See also, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "for violation of fifth amendment's due process clause and its equal protection assurance",
"sentence": "Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979) (for violation of fifth amendment’s due process clause and its equal protection assurance); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (for violation of fourth amendment rights)."
} | 1,417,346 | b |
We must next consider whether Micklus' pro se complaint states a cause of action for damages arising out of the constitution. The Supreme Court has implied a cause of action directly under the constitution and permitted the remedy of damages in two cases. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit",
"sentence": "See also, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "for violation of fifth amendment's due process clause and its equal protection assurance",
"sentence": "Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979) (for violation of fifth amendment’s due process clause and its equal protection assurance); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (for violation of fourth amendment rights)."
} | 1,417,346 | b |
We must next consider whether Micklus' pro se complaint states a cause of action for damages arising out of the constitution. The Supreme Court has implied a cause of action directly under the constitution and permitted the remedy of damages in two cases. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit",
"sentence": "See also, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "for violation of fifth amendment's due process clause and its equal protection assurance",
"sentence": "Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979) (for violation of fifth amendment’s due process clause and its equal protection assurance); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (for violation of fourth amendment rights)."
} | 1,417,346 | b |
We must next consider whether Micklus' pro se complaint states a cause of action for damages arising out of the constitution. The Supreme Court has implied a cause of action directly under the constitution and permitted the remedy of damages in two cases. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "for violation of fifth amendment's due process clause and its equal protection assurance",
"sentence": "Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979) (for violation of fifth amendment’s due process clause and its equal protection assurance); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (for violation of fourth amendment rights)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit",
"sentence": "See also, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (Bivens remedy available directly under eighth amendment even though the allegations could support a Federal Tort Claims Act suit)."
} | 1,417,346 | a |
A state court's decision whether to recognize and enforce an employer's cause of action for reimbursement, which is ere- ated by statute in another state, is an issue of conflict of laws rather than subject matter jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "355 N.W.2d 322, 324",
"parenthetical": "applying Alaska law to govern attorney-client fee agreement pertaining to an Alaska worker's compensation action",
"sentence": "See Hoffman v. Henderson, 355 N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn.Ct.App.), pet. for review denied, (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2326, 85 L.Ed.2d 844 (1985) (applying Alaska law to govern attorney-client fee agreement pertaining to an Alaska worker’s compensation action); Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Girard Steel Supply Co., 224 F.Supp. 690, 695 (D.Minn.1963) (declining to enforce in Minnesota a Wisconsin employer’s right to reimbursement under Wisconsin law); cf. Barry v. Baker Electric Cooperative, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 666, 668-73 (N.D.1984) (holding North Dakota law, which precludes a negligent employer from being liable for contribution, applicable as against Minnesota law, which permits limited contribution liability, even thought the injure employee received benefits under the Minnesota worker’s compensation act)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "354 N.W.2d 666, 668-73",
"parenthetical": "holding North Dakota law, which precludes a negligent employer from being liable for contribution, applicable as against Minnesota law, which permits limited contribution liability, even thought the injure employee received benefits under the Minnesota worker's compensation act",
"sentence": "See Hoffman v. Henderson, 355 N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn.Ct.App.), pet. for review denied, (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2326, 85 L.Ed.2d 844 (1985) (applying Alaska law to govern attorney-client fee agreement pertaining to an Alaska worker’s compensation action); Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Girard Steel Supply Co., 224 F.Supp. 690, 695 (D.Minn.1963) (declining to enforce in Minnesota a Wisconsin employer’s right to reimbursement under Wisconsin law); cf. Barry v. Baker Electric Cooperative, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 666, 668-73 (N.D.1984) (holding North Dakota law, which precludes a negligent employer from being liable for contribution, applicable as against Minnesota law, which permits limited contribution liability, even thought the injure employee received benefits under the Minnesota worker’s compensation act)."
} | 10,656,980 | a |
A state court's decision whether to recognize and enforce an employer's cause of action for reimbursement, which is ere- ated by statute in another state, is an issue of conflict of laws rather than subject matter jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "354 N.W.2d 666, 668-73",
"parenthetical": "holding North Dakota law, which precludes a negligent employer from being liable for contribution, applicable as against Minnesota law, which permits limited contribution liability, even thought the injure employee received benefits under the Minnesota worker's compensation act",
"sentence": "See Hoffman v. Henderson, 355 N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn.Ct.App.), pet. for review denied, (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2326, 85 L.Ed.2d 844 (1985) (applying Alaska law to govern attorney-client fee agreement pertaining to an Alaska worker’s compensation action); Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Girard Steel Supply Co., 224 F.Supp. 690, 695 (D.Minn.1963) (declining to enforce in Minnesota a Wisconsin employer’s right to reimbursement under Wisconsin law); cf. Barry v. Baker Electric Cooperative, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 666, 668-73 (N.D.1984) (holding North Dakota law, which precludes a negligent employer from being liable for contribution, applicable as against Minnesota law, which permits limited contribution liability, even thought the injure employee received benefits under the Minnesota worker’s compensation act)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Alaska law to govern attorney-client fee agreement pertaining to an Alaska worker's compensation action",
"sentence": "See Hoffman v. Henderson, 355 N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn.Ct.App.), pet. for review denied, (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2326, 85 L.Ed.2d 844 (1985) (applying Alaska law to govern attorney-client fee agreement pertaining to an Alaska worker’s compensation action); Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Girard Steel Supply Co., 224 F.Supp. 690, 695 (D.Minn.1963) (declining to enforce in Minnesota a Wisconsin employer’s right to reimbursement under Wisconsin law); cf. Barry v. Baker Electric Cooperative, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 666, 668-73 (N.D.1984) (holding North Dakota law, which precludes a negligent employer from being liable for contribution, applicable as against Minnesota law, which permits limited contribution liability, even thought the injure employee received benefits under the Minnesota worker’s compensation act)."
} | 10,656,980 | b |
A state court's decision whether to recognize and enforce an employer's cause of action for reimbursement, which is ere- ated by statute in another state, is an issue of conflict of laws rather than subject matter jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "applying Alaska law to govern attorney-client fee agreement pertaining to an Alaska worker's compensation action",
"sentence": "See Hoffman v. Henderson, 355 N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn.Ct.App.), pet. for review denied, (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2326, 85 L.Ed.2d 844 (1985) (applying Alaska law to govern attorney-client fee agreement pertaining to an Alaska worker’s compensation action); Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Girard Steel Supply Co., 224 F.Supp. 690, 695 (D.Minn.1963) (declining to enforce in Minnesota a Wisconsin employer’s right to reimbursement under Wisconsin law); cf. Barry v. Baker Electric Cooperative, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 666, 668-73 (N.D.1984) (holding North Dakota law, which precludes a negligent employer from being liable for contribution, applicable as against Minnesota law, which permits limited contribution liability, even thought the injure employee received benefits under the Minnesota worker’s compensation act)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "354 N.W.2d 666, 668-73",
"parenthetical": "holding North Dakota law, which precludes a negligent employer from being liable for contribution, applicable as against Minnesota law, which permits limited contribution liability, even thought the injure employee received benefits under the Minnesota worker's compensation act",
"sentence": "See Hoffman v. Henderson, 355 N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn.Ct.App.), pet. for review denied, (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2326, 85 L.Ed.2d 844 (1985) (applying Alaska law to govern attorney-client fee agreement pertaining to an Alaska worker’s compensation action); Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Girard Steel Supply Co., 224 F.Supp. 690, 695 (D.Minn.1963) (declining to enforce in Minnesota a Wisconsin employer’s right to reimbursement under Wisconsin law); cf. Barry v. Baker Electric Cooperative, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 666, 668-73 (N.D.1984) (holding North Dakota law, which precludes a negligent employer from being liable for contribution, applicable as against Minnesota law, which permits limited contribution liability, even thought the injure employee received benefits under the Minnesota worker’s compensation act)."
} | 10,656,980 | a |
A state court's decision whether to recognize and enforce an employer's cause of action for reimbursement, which is ere- ated by statute in another state, is an issue of conflict of laws rather than subject matter jurisdiction. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "354 N.W.2d 666, 668-73",
"parenthetical": "holding North Dakota law, which precludes a negligent employer from being liable for contribution, applicable as against Minnesota law, which permits limited contribution liability, even thought the injure employee received benefits under the Minnesota worker's compensation act",
"sentence": "See Hoffman v. Henderson, 355 N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn.Ct.App.), pet. for review denied, (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2326, 85 L.Ed.2d 844 (1985) (applying Alaska law to govern attorney-client fee agreement pertaining to an Alaska worker’s compensation action); Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Girard Steel Supply Co., 224 F.Supp. 690, 695 (D.Minn.1963) (declining to enforce in Minnesota a Wisconsin employer’s right to reimbursement under Wisconsin law); cf. Barry v. Baker Electric Cooperative, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 666, 668-73 (N.D.1984) (holding North Dakota law, which precludes a negligent employer from being liable for contribution, applicable as against Minnesota law, which permits limited contribution liability, even thought the injure employee received benefits under the Minnesota worker’s compensation act)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "224 F.Supp. 690, 695",
"parenthetical": "declining to enforce in Minnesota a Wisconsin employer's right to reimbursement under Wisconsin law",
"sentence": "See Hoffman v. Henderson, 355 N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn.Ct.App.), pet. for review denied, (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2326, 85 L.Ed.2d 844 (1985) (applying Alaska law to govern attorney-client fee agreement pertaining to an Alaska worker’s compensation action); Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Girard Steel Supply Co., 224 F.Supp. 690, 695 (D.Minn.1963) (declining to enforce in Minnesota a Wisconsin employer’s right to reimbursement under Wisconsin law); cf. Barry v. Baker Electric Cooperative, Inc., 354 N.W.2d 666, 668-73 (N.D.1984) (holding North Dakota law, which precludes a negligent employer from being liable for contribution, applicable as against Minnesota law, which permits limited contribution liability, even thought the injure employee received benefits under the Minnesota worker’s compensation act)."
} | 10,656,980 | b |
An agency is, of course, entitled to "substantial deference" in its "interpretation of its own regulations." Carus does not quarrel with this principle but nonetheless argues deference to the EPA's interpretation of SS 2.4.1.1 is not appropriate because (Carus nakedly asserts) that interpretation is simply a "litigation position." | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "519 U.S. 452, 462",
"parenthetical": "agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference",
"sentence": "But see Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462, 117 S.Ct. 905, 911, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "488 U.S. 204, 212",
"parenthetical": "court owes no \"deference to an agency counsel's interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question\"",
"sentence": "See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 212, 109 S.Ct. 468, 474, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (court owes no “deference to an agency counsel’s interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question”)."
} | 3,435,020 | b |
An agency is, of course, entitled to "substantial deference" in its "interpretation of its own regulations." Carus does not quarrel with this principle but nonetheless argues deference to the EPA's interpretation of SS 2.4.1.1 is not appropriate because (Carus nakedly asserts) that interpretation is simply a "litigation position." | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 905, 911",
"parenthetical": "agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference",
"sentence": "But see Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462, 117 S.Ct. 905, 911, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "488 U.S. 204, 212",
"parenthetical": "court owes no \"deference to an agency counsel's interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question\"",
"sentence": "See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 212, 109 S.Ct. 468, 474, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (court owes no “deference to an agency counsel’s interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question”)."
} | 3,435,020 | b |
An agency is, of course, entitled to "substantial deference" in its "interpretation of its own regulations." Carus does not quarrel with this principle but nonetheless argues deference to the EPA's interpretation of SS 2.4.1.1 is not appropriate because (Carus nakedly asserts) that interpretation is simply a "litigation position." | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference",
"sentence": "But see Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462, 117 S.Ct. 905, 911, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "488 U.S. 204, 212",
"parenthetical": "court owes no \"deference to an agency counsel's interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question\"",
"sentence": "See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 212, 109 S.Ct. 468, 474, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (court owes no “deference to an agency counsel’s interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question”)."
} | 3,435,020 | b |
An agency is, of course, entitled to "substantial deference" in its "interpretation of its own regulations." Carus does not quarrel with this principle but nonetheless argues deference to the EPA's interpretation of SS 2.4.1.1 is not appropriate because (Carus nakedly asserts) that interpretation is simply a "litigation position." | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "109 S.Ct. 468, 474",
"parenthetical": "court owes no \"deference to an agency counsel's interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question\"",
"sentence": "See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 212, 109 S.Ct. 468, 474, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (court owes no “deference to an agency counsel’s interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "519 U.S. 452, 462",
"parenthetical": "agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference",
"sentence": "But see Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462, 117 S.Ct. 905, 911, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference)."
} | 3,435,020 | a |
An agency is, of course, entitled to "substantial deference" in its "interpretation of its own regulations." Carus does not quarrel with this principle but nonetheless argues deference to the EPA's interpretation of SS 2.4.1.1 is not appropriate because (Carus nakedly asserts) that interpretation is simply a "litigation position." | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 905, 911",
"parenthetical": "agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference",
"sentence": "But see Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462, 117 S.Ct. 905, 911, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "109 S.Ct. 468, 474",
"parenthetical": "court owes no \"deference to an agency counsel's interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question\"",
"sentence": "See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 212, 109 S.Ct. 468, 474, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (court owes no “deference to an agency counsel’s interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question”)."
} | 3,435,020 | b |
An agency is, of course, entitled to "substantial deference" in its "interpretation of its own regulations." Carus does not quarrel with this principle but nonetheless argues deference to the EPA's interpretation of SS 2.4.1.1 is not appropriate because (Carus nakedly asserts) that interpretation is simply a "litigation position." | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "109 S.Ct. 468, 474",
"parenthetical": "court owes no \"deference to an agency counsel's interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question\"",
"sentence": "See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 212, 109 S.Ct. 468, 474, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (court owes no “deference to an agency counsel’s interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference",
"sentence": "But see Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462, 117 S.Ct. 905, 911, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference)."
} | 3,435,020 | a |
An agency is, of course, entitled to "substantial deference" in its "interpretation of its own regulations." Carus does not quarrel with this principle but nonetheless argues deference to the EPA's interpretation of SS 2.4.1.1 is not appropriate because (Carus nakedly asserts) that interpretation is simply a "litigation position." | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "519 U.S. 452, 462",
"parenthetical": "agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference",
"sentence": "But see Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462, 117 S.Ct. 905, 911, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "court owes no \"deference to an agency counsel's interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question\"",
"sentence": "See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 212, 109 S.Ct. 468, 474, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (court owes no “deference to an agency counsel’s interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question”)."
} | 3,435,020 | b |
An agency is, of course, entitled to "substantial deference" in its "interpretation of its own regulations." Carus does not quarrel with this principle but nonetheless argues deference to the EPA's interpretation of SS 2.4.1.1 is not appropriate because (Carus nakedly asserts) that interpretation is simply a "litigation position." | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "117 S.Ct. 905, 911",
"parenthetical": "agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference",
"sentence": "But see Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462, 117 S.Ct. 905, 911, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "court owes no \"deference to an agency counsel's interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question\"",
"sentence": "See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 212, 109 S.Ct. 468, 474, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (court owes no “deference to an agency counsel’s interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question”)."
} | 3,435,020 | b |
An agency is, of course, entitled to "substantial deference" in its "interpretation of its own regulations." Carus does not quarrel with this principle but nonetheless argues deference to the EPA's interpretation of SS 2.4.1.1 is not appropriate because (Carus nakedly asserts) that interpretation is simply a "litigation position." | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "court owes no \"deference to an agency counsel's interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question\"",
"sentence": "See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 212, 109 S.Ct. 468, 474, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (court owes no “deference to an agency counsel’s interpretation of a statute where the agency itself has articulated no position on the question”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference",
"sentence": "But see Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462, 117 S.Ct. 905, 911, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (agency interpretation of regulation first appearing in legal brief not categorically unworthy of deference)."
} | 3,435,020 | a |
Congress did not define "member" when it enacted IGRA, nor would federally imposed criteria be consonant with federal Indian policy. The great weight of authority holds that tribes have exclusive authority to determine membership issues. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "249 F.2d 915, 920",
"parenthetical": "\"[t]he Courts have consistently recognized that in the absence of express legislation by Congress to the contrary, a tribe has complete authority to determine all questions of its own membership as a political entity\"",
"sentence": "See Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 249 F.2d 915, 920 (10th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 924, 78 S.Ct. 1374, 2 L.Ed.2d 1376 (1958) (“[t]he Courts have consistently recognized that in the absence of express legislation by Congress to the contrary, a tribe has complete authority to determine all questions of its own membership as a political entity”); see also Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 72 n. 32, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1684 n. 32, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978) (holding that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a tribe’s membership requirements violated ICRA, and noting that “a tribe’s right to define its own membership for tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a tribe's membership requirements violated ICRA, and noting that \"a tribe's right to define its own membership for tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community\"",
"sentence": "See Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 249 F.2d 915, 920 (10th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 924, 78 S.Ct. 1374, 2 L.Ed.2d 1376 (1958) (“[t]he Courts have consistently recognized that in the absence of express legislation by Congress to the contrary, a tribe has complete authority to determine all questions of its own membership as a political entity”); see also Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 72 n. 32, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1684 n. 32, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978) (holding that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a tribe’s membership requirements violated ICRA, and noting that “a tribe’s right to define its own membership for tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community”)."
} | 7,846,813 | a |
Congress did not define "member" when it enacted IGRA, nor would federally imposed criteria be consonant with federal Indian policy. The great weight of authority holds that tribes have exclusive authority to determine membership issues. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "249 F.2d 915, 920",
"parenthetical": "\"[t]he Courts have consistently recognized that in the absence of express legislation by Congress to the contrary, a tribe has complete authority to determine all questions of its own membership as a political entity\"",
"sentence": "See Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 249 F.2d 915, 920 (10th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 924, 78 S.Ct. 1374, 2 L.Ed.2d 1376 (1958) (“[t]he Courts have consistently recognized that in the absence of express legislation by Congress to the contrary, a tribe has complete authority to determine all questions of its own membership as a political entity”); see also Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 72 n. 32, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1684 n. 32, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978) (holding that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a tribe’s membership requirements violated ICRA, and noting that “a tribe’s right to define its own membership for tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a tribe's membership requirements violated ICRA, and noting that \"a tribe's right to define its own membership for tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community\"",
"sentence": "See Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 249 F.2d 915, 920 (10th Cir.1957), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 924, 78 S.Ct. 1374, 2 L.Ed.2d 1376 (1958) (“[t]he Courts have consistently recognized that in the absence of express legislation by Congress to the contrary, a tribe has complete authority to determine all questions of its own membership as a political entity”); see also Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 72 n. 32, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1684 n. 32, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978) (holding that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a tribe’s membership requirements violated ICRA, and noting that “a tribe’s right to define its own membership for tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community”)."
} | 7,846,813 | a |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.