|
|
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982)
Youngberg v. Romeo No. 80-1429 Argued January 11, 1982 Decided June 18, 1982 457 U.S. 307
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Respondent, who is mentally retarded, was involuntarily committed to a Pennsylvania state institution. Subsequently, after becoming concerned about injuries which respondent had suffered at the institution, his mother filed an action as his next friend in Federal District Court for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against petitioner institution officials. She claimed that respondent had constitutional rights to safe conditions of confinement, freedom from bodily restraint, and training or "habilitation" and that petitioners knew, or should have known, about his injuries, but failed to take appropriate preventive procedures, thus violating his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. In the ensuing jury trial, the District Court instructed the jury on the assumption that the Eighth Amendment was the proper standard of liability, and a verdict was returned for petitioners, on which judgment was entered. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the Fourteenth, rather than the Eighth, Amendment provided the proper constitutional basis for the asserted rights.
Held: Respondent has constitutionally protected liberty interests under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to reasonably safe conditions of confinement, freedom from unreasonable bodily restraints, and such minimally adequate training as reasonably may be required by these interests. Whether respondent’s constitutional rights have been violated must be determined by balancing these liberty interests against the relevant state interests. The proper standard for determining whether the State has adequately protected such rights is whether professional judgment, in fact, was exercised. And in determining what is "reasonable," courts must show deference to the judgment exercised by a qualified professional, whose decision is presumptively valid. Pp. 314-325.
644 F.2d 147, vacated and remanded.
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BRENNAN and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 325. BURGER, C.J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 329.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) in 457 U.S. 307 457 U.S. 308–457 U.S. 309. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=RLVW7QBB95LEDG5.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982), in 457 U.S. 307, pp. 457 U.S. 308–457 U.S. 309. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=RLVW7QBB95LEDG5.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982). cited in 1982, 457 U.S. 307, pp.457 U.S. 308–457 U.S. 309. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=RLVW7QBB95LEDG5.
|