Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 252 F. Supp. 2d 144 - Sinde v. Gerlinski

252 F. Supp. 2d 144 - Sinde v. Gerlinski’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
October 2009
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution Walpole v. Hill · O'NEAL v. McAninch

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the inmate must receive no less than twenty-four hours advance written notice of the claimed violations; (2) the inmate must receive a written statement of the fact finder as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken; (3) the inmate must be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, when permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals; (4) the inmate must be allowed to seek the aid of a fellow inmate or staff member; and (5) the disciplinary hearings must be impartial. Wolff v. McDonnell, [ 418 U.S. 539, 564-70 , 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2979-81 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935, 956-59 (1974).] According to the Court, however, confrontation and cross-examination are not constitutional requirements in a disciplinary hearing. Id. at 567 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.