Heidelburg v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]o meet the due process standard, the disciplinary board's decision must neither be arbitrary nor capricious, and must be based upon some evidence. Thompson v. State , 504 So.2d 747 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987); Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martin v. State · 575 So. 2d 622 - Works v. State

2. ““One of the minimum requirements of due process in a prison disciplinary proceeding is that there be a ‘written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons’ for the disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 564 , 94 S.Ct. at 2979 ; Rice v. State, 460 So.2d 254, 256 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). The written statement protects the inmates 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. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. at 565 , 94 S.Ct. at 2979 ; Spooner v. State, 451 So.2d 429, 430 (Ala.Cr.App.1984).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garlington v. State · 541 So. 2d 590 - Huey v. State