The hands-off era is said to have ended in 1970 when a federal district court declared in the case the entire Arkansas prison system "so inhumane as to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment."

Holt vs. Sarver

Explanation:

Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that the court case that is being pointed to in this scenario is the Holt vs. Sarver case. This was a court decision which would ultimately become the first of many cases where the court would find the entire state prison systems in violation of prisoners' constitutional rights with them being accused of  inflicting cruel and unusual punishment to the prisoners.

i am confused, what is the question? i can you out if you put it into more depth.

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.