Moore v. Wainwright

William MOORE, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 19, 1979.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1979-01-19

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1992

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[t]he petition states specific allegations regarding the disciplinary proceedings which, if true, would establish that the Department of Corrections failed to comply with its own rules and with the procedural requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 609 So. 2d 751 - Holcomb v. Department of Corrections

Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1979-01-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1William Moore, in pro per.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on an allegation that he was deprived of due process of law in disciplinary proceedings. The trial court *184 denied his petition without a hearing. We reverse.

¶5The petition states specific allegations regarding the disciplinary proceedings which, if true, would establish that the Department of Corrections failed to comply with its own rules and with the procedural requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell,418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a hearing to the adequacy of the disciplinary proceedings.

¶6Reversed and Remanded.

¶7MILLS, Acting C.J., and SMITH and MELVIN, JJ., concur.