Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 856 SO2D 954 - Byers v. State

Byers v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
October 2010
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution Walpole v. Hill · Ex Parte Floyd · Heidelburg v. State · 794 So. 2d 307 - Ex Parte Berry

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 2 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] at 541-42, 94 S.Ct. 2963 [ (1974) ], the United States Supreme Court held that due process requires that a prisoner in a disciplinary proceeding where a liberty interest is implicated must be afforded advance (no less than 24 hours), notice of the charge against him; the right to be present at the disciplinary hearing; the right to present documentary evidence on his behalf; a qualified right to have a representative present on his behalf; a qualified right to call witnesses; and a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the decision of the disciplinary body. See Brown v. State, 592 So.2d 621, 623 (Ala.1991); and Zamudio v. State, 615 So.2d 156, 157 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). In Thompson v. State, 504 So.2d 747, 748 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), this Court relying on Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985), stated that in order to satisfy due process, there must be ‘some evidence’ to support the decision by the prison disciplinary board that the inmate is guilty of the alleged violation. The relevant question is then whether there is some evidence in the record that could support the conclusions reached by the hearing officer. See Thompson, 504 So.2d at 748 ; see also Heidelburg v. State, 522 So.2d 337, 339 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). “ ‘Due process requires that the decision of a state disciplinary board or a hearing officer not be made arbitraril”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.