462:
Amendment." In Thomas's view, no prior litigation involving
Alabama's use of the restraining bar would have put a reasonable prison guard on notice that the mere act of attaching a prisoner to it would violate the Eighth Amendment. The three federal district courts in Alabama had all rejected this contention, as well as the idea endorsed by the majority—that exposure to the elements resulting from an extended stay on the hitching post, coupled with the pain caused by the handcuffed—was the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Hope did not allege that the mere act of attaching him to the restraining bar "imposed a substantial risk of serious harm upon him". Nor was it, in light of the district courts' conclusion, "obvious" that this act would have caused Hope harm. There was no evidence that these particular guards had read the Department of Justice's report. The Alabama Department of Corrections's regulation specifically authorized guards to use the restraining bar when inmates were disruptive to the work squad. The fact that the guards did not comply with the recordkeeping requirement of the regulation was beside the point, Justice Thomas believed, because Hope never alleged that the guards' failure to do so caused the Eighth Amendment violation. Thomas also read binding Fifth and Eleventh Circuit precedent merely to prohibit "malicious and sadistic" conduct by guards. While handcuffing prisoners to fences for "long periods of time" could be considered malicious and sadistic under these binding precedents, it was not clear to Justice Thomas whether 7 hours counted as a "long period of time" under this precedent. Finally, "deliberate indifference" means that the prison official knew of and then disregarded an excessive risk to health and safety, and there was no evidence that these guards knew that merely attaching Hope to the restraining bar posed such a risk.
449:
the
Alabama Department of Corrections. Furthermore, Fifth Circuit precedent that was binding on the state of Alabama—forbidding "handcuffing inmates to the fence and to cells for long periods of time, and forcing inmates to stand, sit, or lie on crates, stumps, or otherwise maintain awkward positions for prolonged periods"—should have notified the guards that using the hitching post violated the Eighth Amendment. Finally, an Alabama Department of Corrections regulation required guards to maintain a log of the inmate's needs for water and bathroom breaks while tied to the hitching post, and required the guards to release the inmate if he told them he was ready to return to work. However, evidence in this case showed that the guards did not maintain such a log during the June incident, and evidence in a related case showed that Alabama prison guards routinely disregarded the regulation's recordkeeping requirement and release conditions. "A course of conduct that tends to prove that the requirement was merely a sham, or that respondents could ignore it with impunity, provides equally strong support for the conclusion that they were fully aware of the wrongful character of their conduct."
437:
Eighth
Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain constitutes cruel and unusual punishment", and "among unnecessary and wanton inflictions of pain are those that are totally without penological justification". The actions of prison officials lack penological justification if they act with deliberate indifference to the health or safety of an inmate. Here it was "obvious" that the Alabama prison guards were deliberately indifferent to Hope's health or safety. Once Hope had been transported back to the prison, concerns about safety had been addressed. There was no emergency situation at hand, yet the prison guards "knowingly subjected to a substantial risk of physical harm, to unnecessary risk of physical pain caused by the handcuffs and the restricted position of confinement for a 7-hour period, to unnecessary exposure to the heat of the sun, to prolonged thirst and taunting, and to a deprivation of bathroom breaks that caused a risk of particular discomfort and humiliation." This was a basic violation of the "dignity of man", which amounts to "gratuitous infliction of wanton and unnecessary pain" prohibited by the law.
400:
they are placed on the post. Most inmates are shackled to the hitching post with their two hands relatively close together and at face level." "The most repeated complaint about the hitching post was the strain it produced on inmates' muscles by forcing them to remain in a standing position with their arms raised in a stationary position for a long period of time. In addition to their exposure to sunburn, dehydration, and muscle aches, the inmates are also placed in substantial pain when the sun heats the handcuffs that shackle them to the hitching post, or heats the hitching post itself." In a related case, several other inmates "described the way in which the handcuffs burned and chafed their skin during their placement on the post."
133:
404:
taller than the hitching post, his arms were above shoulder height and grew tired from being handcuffed so high. Whenever he tried to move his arms to improve his circulation, the handcuffs cut into his wrists. Guards came by every 15 minutes to offer him water and a bathroom break, and Hope's responses were recorded in a log. Hope was let go two hours later when it was determined that the other man initiated the argument.
408:
guards took Hope back to
Limestone and put him on the hitching post for seven hours. The guards forced Hope to remove his shirt, and the sun burned his skin. He received water only once or twice during the day and had no bathroom breaks. At one point, one of the guards taunted him by first allowing some dogs to drink some water before bringing the water closer to him and then spilling it on the ground.
24:
458:
them were not even present at the time, and the third's sole contribution to the injury Hope alleged was the act of attaching Hope to the "restraining bar". As against the defendants Hope himself named in this suit, then, he did not allege that they were the cause of his injuries, and thus Hope's complaint was, in Thomas's view, deficient.
448:
The
Alabama prison guards' use of the hitching post was "arguably" such an "obvious" violation of Hope's Eighth Amendment rights that the Court's prior cases put the guards on notice that using the hitching post would violate the Eighth Amendment. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Justice had so advised
407:
On June 7, 1995, however, Hope's punishment was more severe. Hope had fallen asleep during the bus ride out to the work site and was "less than prompt" in getting off the bus once it arrived there. Hope got into a fight with a guard, during which four other guards intervened and subdued Hope. The
390:
The Court opined that a hitching post was generally cruel and unusual, applying 20th century standards that probably would not have applied in 1789. The second question, and the one that the Court ruled upon, was whether the guards could claim qualified immunity. The Court let Hope sue the guards in
427:
determined that the use of the hitching post was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Nevertheless, it affirmed the grant of qualified immunity because, in its view, the hitching post was not materially similar to other forms of punishment with respect to which it was
403:
Larry Hope, an inmate at
Limestone Prison, was punished by the hitching post on two occasions. On May 11, 1995, Hope was working on a chain gang near an interstate highway when he got into an argument with another inmate. Both men were chained to the hitching post. Because Hope was only slightly
461:
In light of these deficiencies, Thomas concluded that it was "far from obvious" that the actions of these three guards violated the Eighth
Amendment. The question Thomas asked was whether in 1995 it was obvious that the "mere act of cuffing petitioner to the restraining bar... violated the Eighth
457:
Justice Thomas identified two principal defects in Hope's case that led him to conclude that the prison guards Hope sued were entitled to qualified immunity. First, the three guards Hope sued were not directly involved in the June incident, the one the Court found to be most disagreeable. Two of
399:
In 1995, Alabama's prisons employed chain gangs and the hitching post. A hitching post is a "horizontal bar made of sturdy, nonflexible material placed between 45 and 57 inches from the ground. Inmates are handcuffed to the hitching post in a standing position and remain standing the entire time
436:
In determining whether a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit should receive qualified immunity, the first question to ask is whether the plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation. On the facts presented in this case, the Court concluded that
Alabama's use of the hitching post violated the
444:
Defendants in civil rights lawsuits, just like defendants in criminal cases, are entitled to fair warning that their conduct violates the law. The Court had previously held that cases establishing a constitutional right need not be "fundamentally similar" to the case at hand before rejecting
440:
Even if the plaintiff has made out a constitutional violation, the defendant may still be entitled to qualified immunity if his actions "did not violate clearly established ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known". The
Eleventh Circuit interpreted this standard rigidly,
376:, under which government actors may not be sued for actions they take in connection with their offices, did not apply to a lawsuit challenging the Alabama Department of Corrections's use of the "hitching post", a punishment whereby inmates were immobilized for long periods of time.
445:
qualified immunity; hence, the Eleventh Circuit's "materially similar" requirement was not the correct one to apply. Rather, the standard was "whether the state of the law in 1995 gave respondents fair warning that the alleged treatment of Hope was unconstitutional".
387:. The first question was whether the use of the hitching post was cruel and unusual in the twentieth century. The second question, depending on a yes answer to the first, was whether the guards were acting as agents of the state, and therefore not personally liable.
415:—the three guards involved in the May incident, one of whom was also involved in the June incident. Without deciding whether "the very act of placing him on a restraining bar for a period of hours as a form of punishment" violated the
1350:
1423:
245:
Qualified immunity is not available to prison officials for civil rights lawsuits alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment for use of a hitching post.
424:
217:
1413:
518:
228:
184:
391:
District Court. In 2005, that court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that in this particular case the named guards had meted cruel and unusual punishment.
651:
416:
347:
470:
In November 2005, a Judge ruled that Larry Hope failed to prove that his treatment in prison amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, and the case was dismissed.
441:
requiring the clearly established right to be "materially similar" to the facts presented by the plaintiff in this case. The Court rejected this approach.
1418:
642:
1428:
797:
547:
596:
369:
351:
137:
107:
41:
1277:
88:
45:
60:
635:
384:
1366:
600:
67:
486:
198:
4884; 70 U.S.L.W. 4710; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5768; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 7285; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 511
34:
1229:
901:
74:
1382:
1329:
412:
591:
893:
1358:
754:
628:
383:
was the question of whether qualified immunity applied in the case of punishment exceeding the standards of
574:
224:
56:
1341:
1205:
805:
690:
682:
276:
1312:
1109:
1053:
933:
615:
522:
232:
176:
1069:
965:
957:
941:
925:
770:
714:
556:
1170:
1125:
861:
762:
722:
304:
1237:
1162:
1117:
989:
981:
909:
885:
853:
821:
730:
420:
373:
213:
1253:
1245:
1221:
1146:
1037:
1005:
973:
869:
813:
789:
746:
738:
698:
538:
268:
260:
1374:
1269:
1154:
1093:
1085:
1013:
949:
917:
877:
837:
829:
81:
1213:
1077:
1045:
1029:
1021:
997:
845:
620:
300:
288:
610:
605:
583:
529:
1321:
1261:
1197:
1101:
565:
312:
280:
165:
1407:
706:
1061:
292:
355:
179:
23:
195:
191:
1351:
Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.
419:, the district court determined that the guards were entitled to
221:
1300:
663:
624:
132:
487:"South: Alabama: Inmate's Lawsuit Against Guards Is Dismissed"
329:
Stevens, joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
17:
1424:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
428:"clearly established" that they were cruel and unusual.
1340:
1311:
1189:
1136:
781:
674:
341:
333:
325:
320:
249:
239:
208:
203:
171:
161:
151:
144:
125:
48:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
372:case in which the Court ruled that the defense of
636:
156:Larry Hope, Petitioner v. Mark Pelzer, et al.
8:
1414:Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause case law
423:, and entered judgment in their favor. The
1308:
1297:
671:
660:
643:
629:
621:
122:
108:Learn how and when to remove this message
478:
798:Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
616:Amicus brief of the Solicitor General
120:2002 United States Supreme Court case
7:
46:adding citations to reliable sources
337:Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia
138:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1419:United States Supreme Court cases
525:730 (2002) is available from:
227:(11th Cir. 2001); cert. granted,
131:
22:
33:needs additional citations for
1429:2002 in United States case law
1278:City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
652:United States Eighth Amendment
1:
411:Hope sued three guards under
368:, 536 U.S. 730 (2002), was a
665:Cruel and unusual punishment
385:cruel and unusual punishment
1367:United States v. Bajakajian
601:Southern Poverty Law Center
592:Transcript of oral argument
370:United States Supreme Court
1445:
584:Oyez (oral argument audio)
1307:
1296:
1230:South Carolina v. Gathers
902:Skipper v. South Carolina
670:
659:
606:Press release of the ACLU
346:
254:
244:
130:
1383:Tyler v. Hennepin County
1330:United States v. Salerno
1302:Excessive bail and fines
611:Amicus brief of the ACLU
1359:Austin v. United States
894:Caldwell v. Mississippi
755:Montgomery v. Louisiana
348:U.S. Const. amend. VIII
1342:Excessive Fines Clause
1206:Robinson v. California
822:California v. Anderson
806:McGautha v. California
691:Robinson v. California
683:Weems v. United States
1313:Excessive Bail Clause
1054:Panetti v. Quarterman
934:Maynard v. Cartwright
190:122 S. Ct. 2508; 153
147:Decided June 27, 2002
145:Argued April 17, 2002
1070:Kennedy v. Louisiana
966:Whitmore v. Arkansas
958:Stanford v. Kentucky
942:Thompson v. Oklahoma
926:Lowenfield v. Phelps
771:Jones v. Mississippi
715:Harmelin v. Michigan
42:improve this article
1246:Helling v. McKinney
1171:Hudson v. McMillian
1137:Corporal punishment
1126:Bucklew v. Precythe
862:Spaziano v. Florida
763:Virginia v. LeBlanc
723:Ewing v. California
575:Library of Congress
305:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
277:Sandra Day O'Connor
1238:Payne v. Tennessee
1163:Ingraham v. Wright
1118:Madison v. Alabama
990:Atkins v. Virginia
982:Herrera v. Collins
910:Ford v. Wainwright
886:Glass v. Louisiana
854:Godfrey v. Georgia
731:Lockyer v. Andrade
493:. November 9, 2005
491:The New York Times
466:Subsequent lawsuit
453:Dissenting opinion
421:qualified immunity
374:qualified immunity
265:Associate Justices
214:qualified immunity
1401:
1400:
1397:
1396:
1393:
1392:
1292:
1291:
1288:
1287:
1254:Farmer v. Brennan
1222:Estelle v. Gamble
1147:Jackson v. Bishop
1038:Hill v. McDonough
1006:Tennard v. Dretke
974:Walton v. Arizona
870:Enmund v. Florida
814:Furman v. Georgia
790:Wilkerson v. Utah
747:Miller v. Alabama
739:Graham v. Florida
699:Rummel v. Estelle
361:
360:
261:William Rehnquist
118:
117:
110:
92:
1436:
1375:Timbs v. Indiana
1309:
1298:
1270:Kahler v. Kansas
1155:Gates v. Collier
1094:Hurst v. Florida
1086:Glossip v. Gross
1014:Roper v. Simmons
950:Penry v. Lynaugh
918:Tison v. Arizona
878:Pulley v. Harris
838:Coker v. Georgia
830:Gregg v. Georgia
672:
661:
645:
638:
631:
622:
588:
582:
579:
573:
570:
564:
561:
555:
552:
546:
543:
537:
534:
528:
503:
502:
500:
498:
483:
432:Majority opinion
425:Eleventh Circuit
417:Eighth Amendment
413:42 U.S.C. § 1983
250:Court membership
235:1073 (2001).
218:Eleventh Circuit
216:affirmed by the
135:
134:
123:
113:
106:
102:
99:
93:
91:
57:"Hope v. Pelzer"
50:
26:
18:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1389:
1336:
1303:
1284:
1214:Powell v. Texas
1185:
1158:(5th Cir. 1974)
1150:(8th Cir. 1968)
1138:
1132:
1078:Hall v. Florida
1046:Kansas v. Marsh
1030:Oregon v. Guzek
1025:(5th Cir. 2005)
1022:Bigby v. Dretke
998:Ring v. Arizona
846:Lockett v. Ohio
777:
666:
655:
649:
586:
580:
577:
571:
568:
562:
559:
553:
550:
544:
541:
535:
532:
526:
516:Hope v. Pelzer,
511:
506:
496:
494:
485:
484:
480:
476:
468:
455:
434:
397:
303:
301:Clarence Thomas
291:
289:Anthony Kennedy
279:
269:John P. Stevens
199:
146:
140:
121:
114:
103:
97:
94:
51:
49:
39:
27:
12:
11:
5:
1442:
1440:
1432:
1431:
1426:
1421:
1416:
1406:
1405:
1399:
1398:
1395:
1394:
1391:
1390:
1388:
1387:
1379:
1371:
1363:
1355:
1346:
1344:
1338:
1337:
1335:
1334:
1326:
1322:Stack v. Boyle
1317:
1315:
1305:
1304:
1301:
1294:
1293:
1290:
1289:
1286:
1285:
1283:
1282:
1274:
1266:
1262:Brown v. Plata
1258:
1250:
1242:
1234:
1226:
1218:
1210:
1202:
1198:Trop v. Dulles
1193:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1184:
1183:
1179:Hope v. Pelzer
1175:
1167:
1159:
1151:
1142:
1140:
1134:
1133:
1131:
1130:
1122:
1114:
1110:Moore v. Texas
1106:
1102:Kansas v. Carr
1098:
1090:
1082:
1074:
1066:
1058:
1050:
1042:
1034:
1026:
1018:
1010:
1002:
994:
986:
978:
970:
962:
954:
946:
938:
930:
922:
914:
906:
898:
890:
882:
874:
866:
858:
850:
842:
834:
826:
818:
810:
802:
794:
785:
783:
779:
778:
776:
775:
767:
759:
751:
743:
735:
727:
719:
711:
703:
695:
687:
678:
676:
668:
667:
664:
657:
656:
650:
648:
647:
640:
633:
625:
619:
618:
613:
608:
603:
594:
589:
557:Google Scholar
510:
509:External links
507:
505:
504:
477:
475:
472:
467:
464:
454:
451:
433:
430:
396:
393:
381:Hope v. Pelzer
365:Hope v. Pelzer
359:
358:
352:42 U.S.C.
344:
343:
339:
338:
335:
331:
330:
327:
323:
322:
318:
317:
316:
315:
313:Stephen Breyer
281:Antonin Scalia
266:
263:
258:
252:
251:
247:
246:
242:
241:
237:
236:
210:
206:
205:
201:
200:
189:
173:
169:
168:
163:
159:
158:
153:
152:Full case name
149:
148:
142:
141:
136:
128:
127:
126:Hope v. Pelzer
119:
116:
115:
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1441:
1430:
1427:
1425:
1422:
1420:
1417:
1415:
1412:
1411:
1409:
1385:
1384:
1380:
1377:
1376:
1372:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1356:
1353:
1352:
1348:
1347:
1345:
1343:
1339:
1332:
1331:
1327:
1324:
1323:
1319:
1318:
1316:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1299:
1295:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1272:
1271:
1267:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1243:
1240:
1239:
1235:
1232:
1231:
1227:
1224:
1223:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1211:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1200:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1192:
1188:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1141:
1135:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1111:
1107:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1003:
1000:
999:
995:
992:
991:
987:
984:
983:
979:
976:
975:
971:
968:
967:
963:
960:
959:
955:
952:
951:
947:
944:
943:
939:
936:
935:
931:
928:
927:
923:
920:
919:
915:
912:
911:
907:
904:
903:
899:
896:
895:
891:
888:
887:
883:
880:
879:
875:
872:
871:
867:
864:
863:
859:
856:
855:
851:
848:
847:
843:
840:
839:
835:
832:
831:
827:
824:
823:
819:
816:
815:
811:
808:
807:
803:
800:
799:
795:
792:
791:
787:
786:
784:
782:Death penalty
780:
773:
772:
768:
765:
764:
760:
757:
756:
752:
749:
748:
744:
741:
740:
736:
733:
732:
728:
725:
724:
720:
717:
716:
712:
709:
708:
707:Solem v. Helm
704:
701:
700:
696:
693:
692:
688:
685:
684:
680:
679:
677:
675:Incarceration
673:
669:
662:
658:
653:
646:
641:
639:
634:
632:
627:
626:
623:
617:
614:
612:
609:
607:
604:
602:
598:
597:Press release
595:
593:
590:
585:
576:
567:
558:
549:
540:
539:CourtListener
531:
524:
520:
517:
513:
512:
508:
492:
488:
482:
479:
473:
471:
465:
463:
459:
452:
450:
446:
442:
438:
431:
429:
426:
422:
418:
414:
409:
405:
401:
394:
392:
388:
386:
382:
377:
375:
371:
367:
366:
357:
353:
349:
345:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
321:Case opinions
319:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
267:
264:
262:
259:
257:Chief Justice
256:
255:
253:
248:
243:
238:
234:
230:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
202:
197:
193:
187:
186:
181:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
160:
157:
154:
150:
143:
139:
129:
124:
112:
109:
101:
98:November 2007
90:
87:
83:
80:
76:
73:
69:
66:
62:
59: –
58:
54:
53:Find sources:
47:
43:
37:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
1381:
1373:
1365:
1357:
1349:
1328:
1320:
1276:
1268:
1260:
1252:
1244:
1236:
1228:
1220:
1212:
1204:
1196:
1178:
1177:
1169:
1161:
1153:
1145:
1124:
1116:
1108:
1100:
1092:
1084:
1076:
1068:
1062:Baze v. Rees
1060:
1052:
1044:
1036:
1028:
1020:
1012:
1004:
996:
988:
980:
972:
964:
956:
948:
940:
932:
924:
916:
908:
900:
892:
884:
876:
868:
865:(1981, 1984)
860:
852:
844:
836:
828:
820:
812:
804:
796:
788:
769:
761:
753:
745:
737:
729:
721:
713:
705:
697:
689:
681:
515:
495:. Retrieved
490:
481:
469:
460:
456:
447:
443:
439:
435:
410:
406:
402:
398:
389:
380:
379:At issue in
378:
364:
363:
362:
342:Laws applied
308:
296:
293:David Souter
284:
272:
204:Case history
183:
155:
104:
95:
85:
78:
71:
64:
52:
40:Please help
35:verification
32:
15:
1139:or injuries
825:(Cal. 1972)
356:§ 1983
1408:Categories
474:References
395:Background
196:U.S. LEXIS
194:666; 2002
162:Docket no.
68:newspapers
599:from the
212:Grant of
192:L. Ed. 2d
172:Citations
654:case law
514:Text of
326:Majority
548:Findlaw
530:Cornell
334:Dissent
240:Holding
82:scholar
1386:(2023)
1378:(2019)
1370:(1998)
1362:(1993)
1354:(1989)
1333:(1987)
1325:(1951)
1281:(2024)
1273:(2020)
1265:(2011)
1257:(1994)
1249:(1993)
1241:(1991)
1233:(1989)
1225:(1976)
1217:(1968)
1209:(1962)
1201:(1958)
1182:(2002)
1174:(1992)
1166:(1977)
1129:(2019)
1121:(2019)
1113:(2017)
1105:(2016)
1097:(2016)
1089:(2015)
1081:(2014)
1073:(2008)
1065:(2008)
1057:(2007)
1049:(2006)
1041:(2006)
1033:(2006)
1017:(2005)
1009:(2004)
1001:(2002)
993:(2002)
985:(1993)
977:(1990)
969:(1990)
961:(1989)
953:(1989)
945:(1988)
937:(1988)
929:(1988)
921:(1987)
913:(1986)
905:(1986)
897:(1985)
889:(1985)
881:(1984)
873:(1982)
857:(1980)
849:(1978)
841:(1977)
833:(1976)
817:(1972)
809:(1971)
801:(1947)
793:(1879)
774:(2021)
766:(2017)
758:(2016)
750:(2012)
742:(2010)
734:(2003)
726:(2003)
718:(1991)
710:(1983)
702:(1980)
694:(1962)
686:(1910)
587:
581:
578:
572:
569:
566:Justia
563:
560:
554:
551:
545:
542:
536:
533:
527:
497:May 4,
354:
311:
309:·
307:
299:
297:·
295:
287:
285:·
283:
275:
273:·
271:
220:, 240
166:01-309
84:
77:
70:
63:
55:
1190:Other
521:
231:
209:Prior
89:JSTOR
75:books
523:U.S.
499:2010
233:U.S.
222:F.3d
185:more
177:U.S.
175:536
61:news
519:536
229:534
225:975
180:730
44:by
1410::
489:.
350:;
644:e
637:t
630:v
501:.
188:)
182:(
111:)
105:(
100:)
96:(
86:·
79:·
72:·
65:·
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
