Starkling v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘An inmate facing a disciplinary proceeding should be allowed to call witnesses in his defense, when permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.’ Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563 , 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2979 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). In this case, if the sole reason for not making the witnesses available to the appellant at the disciplinary hearing was that they could not be reached in what appears from the disciplinary report to have been a last minute and rather perfunctory attempt to telephone them, that reason would be insufficient to meet the due process requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell. ‘ “Denying the presence of a witness because of the mere fact that the requested witness is ‘off duty’ or ‘cannot be reached by phone’ does not comport with those basic due process rights afforded in both Williams [v. Davis, 386 So.2d 415 (Ala.1980)], and Wolff, supra.” ’ Lewis v. State, 485 So.2d 811, 812 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), quoting Ex parte Bland, 441 So.2d 122, 125 (Ala.1983).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 935 So. 2d 1193 - Luster v. State