636 So. 2d 696 - Bridges v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Due process requires that the decision of a state disciplinary board or a hearing officer not be made arbitrarily or capriciously, but be based upon some evidence. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); Heidelburg v. State [ 522 So.2d 337 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988)]. *Page 987 Hearsay testimony may be admissible in prison disciplinary hearings; however, it may not alone be sufficient to support a finding of guilt. Pearsall v. State , 564 So.2d 1014 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989), rev'd in part on other grounds, 564 So.2d 1017 (Ala. 1990). See also Ex parte Floyd , 457 So.2d 961 (Ala. 1984). Situations arise where findings of guilt based entirely on hearsay are proper and necessary; however, in those cases certain measures must be taken to ensure minimum due process. Pearsall v. State ,[supra]."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Byers v. State · Baskin v. State

2. “who had direct knowledge of the incident. The State presented nothing to indicate the reliability of the hearsay testimony, other than a”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baskin v. State · 854 So. 2d 160 - McFadden v. State

3. “so as to satisfy the requirements of due process. No reason was given for the State's failure to produce the unidentified”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baskin v. State · 854 So. 2d 160 - McFadden v. State