Second Circuit
Edwards v. Arnone, 613 F.3d 44, 46 (2d Cir. 2015) (“Taken together, our earlier decisions have clearly established a right for inmates to have some meaningful opportunity for exercise, unless the prison has a legitimate safety justification and has adequately considered feasible alternatives.”).
Gardner v. Murphy, 613 F. App’x 40, 42-43 (2d Cir. 2015) (stating that “under existing clearly established case law, a reasonable jury may conclude that reasonable officers would agree that handcuffing inmates behind their backs during their out-of-cell exercise without an adequate safety justification is unconstitutional”).
Williams v. Greifinger, 97 F.3d 699, 706 (2d Cir. 1996) (finding that “the right to exercise was . . . indeed clearly established”).
Eighth Circuit
Buckley v. Rogerson, 133 F.3d 1125, 1131 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that “case law clearly established at the time in question that the decision to use segregation or restraints had to be made under close medical supervision”).
Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d 134, 140 (8th Cir. 1989) (“Although there is no ‘static test’ to determine what confinement conditions violate the eighth amendment, . . . common sense is sometimes helpful. The jury found that Howard had been forced to live under extreme conditions for a period of two years.”).
U.S. Supreme Court
Taylor v. Riojas, 19-1261, 2020 WL 6385693, at *2 (U.S. Nov. 2, 2020) (“Confronted with the particularly egregious facts of this case, any reasonable officer should have realized that Taylor’s conditions of confinement offended the Constitution.”).