Case Citator › Max Lopez, Jr. v. G.A. Smith

Max Lopez, Jr. v. G.A. Smith

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courtsin review
1,382 of 1,384 flagged citations read · 99.9%
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
203 F.3d 1122
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
1,382 of 1,384
Citing cases (total)
9,726
Treatment dates
2001–2004
Declined by some courts · in review
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Max Lopez, Jr. v. G.A. Smith is still in review: 1,382 of 1,384 flagged citations have been read, and two citing opinions decline to follow Lopez's rules.
More on how this was screened

The Seventh Circuit retained an injury requirement for prolonged denial of exercise, while a district court in Wisconsin applied contrary Seventh Circuit authority. The two confirmed treatments are listed below.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

9,726 later cases cite Max Lopez, Jr. v. G.A. Smith; 1,384 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; the progress bar above tracks how many have been read so far. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Max Lopez, Jr. v. G.A. Smith?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • The Seventh Circuit declined to follow Lopez's rule that a prisoner alleging long-term denial of exercise need not show adverse medical effects, retaining an injury requirement.

    Glen Delaney v. George Detella, Glenn Malone, Christopher Hughes, Eugene McAdory Clarence Wright, Donald Burns, and David Walker · Seventh Circuit · filed

    Moreover, while we have not waived the injury requirement for claims involving the denial of exercise, but see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1133 f.15 (9th Cir.2000) (where inmate alleges long-term denial of exercise — in excess of 6 weeks — no showing of adverse medical effects required), we have acknowledged the strong likelihood of psychological injury when segregated prisoners are denied all access to exercise for more than 90 days.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Western District of Wisconsin declined to follow Lopez's rule on outdoor exercise and applied Seventh Circuit authority to dismiss the claim.

    King v. Frank · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin · filed

    Unfortunately for plaintiff, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held the prisoners do not have a constitutional right to receive their recreation outside. Thomas v. Ramos, 130 F.3d 754 (7th Cir.1997); but see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000) (outdoor exercise required under Eighth Amendment). Although inmates do have a constitutional right to maintain their health, which includes a right to adequate exercise, e.g., Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1236 (7th Cir.1988), plaintiff does not allege that his opportunities for indoor exercise were insufficient. Therefore, this claim will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Max Lopez, Jr. v. G.A. Smith and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace