451 So. 2d 429 - Spooner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), the Supreme Court held that due process requires that an inmate involved in a prison disciplinary proceeding must be provided with a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken. Id. at 565 [ 94 S.Ct. at 2979 ]. The written statement protects the inmate from possible collateral consequences based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the original proceeding and from arbitrary action by prison officials and enables him to `propound his own cause' subsequent to the hearing. Id. at 565 [ 94 S.Ct. at 2979 .]"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Heidelburg v. State · 485 So. 2d 389 - Jackson v. State

2. ““We fail to see any difference between these inadequate statements and the statement ■ of Spooner’s disciplinary board. The board in the instant case likewise failed to specify the facts in the officer’s report upon which it relied. Due process requires more than a boilerplate sentence which could be applied in every case; otherwise the concerns of Wolff would not be protected.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garlington v. State

3. “recited in the Disciplinary Report are as follows:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 460 So. 2d 254 - Rice v. State