REMEDIES WITHOUT RIGHTS? THE LEGAL BASIS OF BROAD‐GAUGE DECREES IN PRISON CONDITIONS CASES

Daryl R. Fair

Review of Policy Research, 1982, vol. 2, issue 2, 262-270

Abstract: This paper examines the legal basis for “broad‐gauge” or “administrative intervention” decrees in the sort of lawsuits which have come to be known as extended impact cases, polycentric disputes, or public law litigation. It concludes that equity provides an adequate basis for such decrees and that the Supreme Court's recent use of a narrower view of judicial equity powers, sometimes called the tailoring principle, is not compelled by precedent. The paper further argues that the Supreme Court appears headed in the direction of using the tailoring principle in prison conditions cases (e.g., Bell v. Wolfish), although some support for a broader view of judicial equity power is found in Hutto v. Finney.

Date: 1982
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1982.tb00672.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:revpol:v:2:y:1982:i:2:p:262-270

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.wiley.com/bw/subs.asp?ref=1541-132x

Access Statistics for this article

Review of Policy Research is currently edited by Christopher Gore

More articles in Review of Policy Research from Policy Studies Organization Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().