Connection lost
Server error
Hutto v. Finney Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court upheld a federal court’s remedial order limiting punitive isolation in state prisons and affirmed that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar attorney’s fee awards against a state, either for bad faith or under federal statute.
Legal Significance: This case affirms broad federal court remedial power for constitutional violations and establishes that the Eleventh Amendment does not shield states from attorney’s fee awards based on bad faith or authorized by Congress under its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power.
Hutto v. Finney Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
This case arose from protracted litigation concerning unconstitutional conditions in the Arkansas prison system, which a federal district court found to constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The conditions included severe overcrowding, inadequate diet, rampant violence, and unsanitary punitive isolation cells where inmates were confined for indeterminate periods. Despite multiple court orders over several years directing the Arkansas Department of Correction to remedy these violations, the state’s progress was deemed unsatisfactory. The district court found that conditions had deteriorated and that state officials had acted in bad faith by failing to comply with earlier decrees. As part of a comprehensive remedy, the court imposed a 30-day maximum on punitive isolation sentences. It also awarded attorney’s fees against the Department of Correction, citing the officials’ bad faith. The Court of Appeals affirmed and awarded additional fees for the appeal under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976. The state officials challenged the 30-day limit and both fee awards, arguing they violated principles of federalism and the Eleventh Amendment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a federal court from awarding attorney’s fees against a state, payable from its treasury, either as a remedy for bad-faith litigation or pursuant to a congressional act enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment?
No, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar such awards. The Court affirmed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labo
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a federal court from awarding attorney’s fees against a state, payable from its treasury, either as a remedy for bad-faith litigation or pursuant to a congressional act enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
Hutto v. Finney solidifies the power of federal courts to use financial Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
Legal Rule
The Eleventh Amendment does not bar a federal court from awarding attorney's Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor
Legal Analysis
Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, bifurcated the attorney's fees analysis. First, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea com
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A federal court may impose a specific time limit on punitive