Wilkins v. Gaddy
E914625
Eighth Amendment case
United States Supreme Court case
excessive force case
prisoner civil rights case
Wilkins v. Gaddy is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision clarifying that the core inquiry in Eighth Amendment excessive force claims is the nature of the force used rather than the extent of the inmate’s injury.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Wilkins v. Gaddy canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T11257260 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Wilkins v. Gaddy Context triple: [Hudson v. McMillian, relatedCase, Wilkins v. Gaddy]
-
A.
Ogden v. Saunders
Ogden v. Saunders is an 1827 U.S. Supreme Court case, known for Justice Bushrod Washington’s opinion addressing the constitutionality of state bankruptcy laws under the Contract Clause.
-
B.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
C.
Ingraham v. Wright
Ingraham v. Wright is a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to corporal punishment in public schools and that due process does not require a prior hearing before such discipline is imposed.
-
D.
Ex parte Garland
Ex parte Garland is an 1867 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited Congress’s power to impose loyalty oaths and affirmed presidential pardon authority in the post–Civil War era.
-
E.
Lucas v. Earl
Lucas v. Earl is a landmark 1930 U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that established the principle that income is taxed to the person who earns it, regardless of contractual arrangements to split or assign that income.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Wilkins v. Gaddy Target entity description: Wilkins v. Gaddy is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision clarifying that the core inquiry in Eighth Amendment excessive force claims is the nature of the force used rather than the extent of the inmate’s injury.
-
A.
Ogden v. Saunders
Ogden v. Saunders is an 1827 U.S. Supreme Court case, known for Justice Bushrod Washington’s opinion addressing the constitutionality of state bankruptcy laws under the Contract Clause.
-
B.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
C.
Ingraham v. Wright
Ingraham v. Wright is a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to corporal punishment in public schools and that due process does not require a prior hearing before such discipline is imposed.
-
D.
Ex parte Garland
Ex parte Garland is an 1867 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited Congress’s power to impose loyalty oaths and affirmed presidential pardon authority in the post–Civil War era.
-
E.
Lucas v. Earl
Lucas v. Earl is a landmark 1930 U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that established the principle that income is taxed to the person who earns it, regardless of contractual arrangements to split or assign that income.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (43)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Eighth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ excessive force case ⓘ prisoner civil rights case ⓘ |
| causeOfAction | 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ⓘ |
| citation |
130 S. Ct. 1175
ⓘ
175 L. Ed. 2d 995 ⓘ 559 U.S. 34 ⓘ |
| clarifies | Hudson v. McMillian ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision | Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2010-02-22 ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 08-10914 ⓘ |
| factSummary | A North Carolina state prisoner alleged that a corrections officer assaulted him without provocation, slamming him to the ground and punching, kicking, and choking him. ⓘ |
| holding |
A significant injury is not a threshold requirement for an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim.
ⓘ
The Fourth Circuit erred by requiring a showing of more-than-de-minimis injury to proceed with an excessive force claim. ⓘ The absence of serious injury is relevant but not dispositive in an Eighth Amendment excessive force analysis. ⓘ The core judicial inquiry in an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim is the nature of the force used, not the extent of the injury suffered. ⓘ |
| impact |
Lower courts may not impose a categorical significant-injury threshold for Eighth Amendment excessive force claims.
ⓘ
Reinforced that minor injuries can still support an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim if the force was malicious and sadistic. ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| legalIssue |
Eighth Amendment excessive force standard
ⓘ
requirement of more-than-de-minimis injury ⓘ |
| locationOfOrigin | North Carolina ⓘ |
| lowerCourt |
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
ⓘ
United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina ⓘ |
| opinionBy |
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
ⓘ
linked to:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
|
| opinionType | per curiam opinion ⓘ |
| overrules | Fourth Circuit more-than-de-minimis injury requirement for excessive force claims ⓘ |
| petitioner | Jamey Lamont Wilkins ⓘ |
| principle |
An inmate who is gratuitously beaten by guards does not lose his ability to pursue an excessive force claim merely because he has the good fortune to escape without serious injury.
ⓘ
Injury and force are imperfectly correlated in excessive force cases. ⓘ |
| proceduralHistory |
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit.
ⓘ
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to allege more-than-de-minimis injury, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. ⓘ |
| relatedCase | Hudson v. McMillian ⓘ |
| remedy | Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. ⓘ |
| respondent | Officer Gaddy ⓘ |
| standard | Excessive force claims turn on whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. ⓘ |
| standardSource |
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)
ⓘ
linked to:
Hudson v. McMillian
|
| subjectMatter |
prison conditions
ⓘ
use of force by correctional officers ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2009 ⓘ |
| vote | unanimous ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Wilkins v. Gaddy Description of subject: Wilkins v. Gaddy is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision clarifying that the core inquiry in Eighth Amendment excessive force claims is the nature of the force used rather than the extent of the inmate’s injury.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.