Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
An inmate brought a civil rights action against representatives of the Nevada State prison system, alleging that his involuntary, unhealthy exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) resulting from assignation to a cell with a five-pack-a-day smoker violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court held that the plaintiff's allegations that the defendants "have, with deliberate indifference, exposed him to levels of ETS that pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health" constituted a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment. The Court therefore remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that successful prosecution of his claim would require the plaintiff to prove: (1) present exposure to unreasonable levels of ETS; (2) the severity and likelihood of future harm; (3) societal perception of this exposure as violating "contemporary standards of decency"; and (4) the deliberate indifference of prison officials to this risk of harm.