Jiro J. Enomoto, Etc. v. James C. Wright, 434 U.S. 1052 (1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Jiro J. Enomoto, Etc. v. James C. Wright, 434 U.S. 1052 (1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“wright i”
255 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 72 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Toussaint v. Yockey (ca9, 1984-01-05) · Strongest negative: Soto v. City of Sacramento (caed, 1983-08-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Soto v. City of Sacramento
E.D. Cal. · 1983 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff’d, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978). 37 .
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Toussaint v. Yockey
9th Cir. · 1984 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
wright i
cited Cited "see" Comer v. Stewart
D. Ariz. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397, 398 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff'd 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978).
discussed Cited "see" American Employers' Insurance v. Delorme Publishing Co.
D. Me. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See International Communication Materials, Inc. v. Employer’s Insur. of Wausau, 1996 WL 1044552 , * (W.D.Pa.) (citing Big O’ Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 408 F.Supp. 1219, 1241 (D.C.Colo.1976), modified, 561 F.2d 1365 (10th Cir.1977), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978)).
cited Cited "see" National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. American Cinema Editors, Inc.
Fed. Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 561 F.2d 1365, 1372 , 195 USPQ 417 , 423 (10th Cir.1977), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978).
discussed Cited "see" Adams v. Kincheloe
E.D. Wash. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397 , (N.D.Cal.1976), aff'd Enomoto v. Wright, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978), later proceeding Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129 (9th Cir.1981), on remand Toussaint v. Rushen, 553 F.Supp. 1365 (N.D.Cal.1983), aff'd in part and vacated in part Toussaint v. Yockey, 722 F.2d 1490 (9th Cir.1984), later proceeding Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F.Supp. 1388 (N.D.Cal.1984), later proceeding Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F.Supp. 1427 (N.D.Cal.1984), and aff'd in part and revd in part, vacated in part Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir.1986)…
cited Cited "see" Balla v. Murphy
Idaho Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397, 403 (N.D.Cal.1976) aff'd sub nom., Enomoto v. Wright, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978).
discussed Cited "see" G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch Inc. (2×)
E.D. Wis. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Big O Tire Dealers v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 561 F.2d 1365, 1369 (10th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978). 22.
discussed Cited "see" Sunward Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 408 F.Supp. 1219 (D.Colo.1976), modified, 561 F.2d 1365 (10th Cir.1977), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978).
discussed Cited "see" Sunward Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 408 F.Supp. 1219 (D.Colo. 1976) , modified, 561 F.2d 1365 (10th Cir. 1977) , cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Messerlian
D.N.J. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Dansker, 565 F.2d 1262, 1264 (3d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978); Government of the Virgin Islands v. Martinez, 780 F.2d 302, 306-08 (3d Cir.1985).
cited Cited "see" Toussaint v. McCarthy
N.D. Cal. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397, 399, 404 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff'd, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978); Toussaint v. Rushen, 553 F.Supp. 1365 (N.D.Cal.1983). 3 .
cited Cited "see" Arrington v. Wainwright
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Parker v. Cook, 642 F.2d 865 , 867 and n. 1 (5th Cir.1981), and Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F. Supp. 397, 402 (N.D.Cal. 1976), affirmed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978).
cited Cited "see" Engineered Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Applied Mechanical Technology, Inc.
M.D. La. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Big O Tire Dealers v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 561 F.2d 1365 (10th Cir.1977), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978).
cited Cited "see" Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc.
2d Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 561 F.2d 1365, 1371-72 (10th Cir.1977), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978); Callman at § 21.09.
discussed Cited "see" Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc.
2d Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 561 F.2d 1365, 1371-72 (10th Cir.1977), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978); Callman at Sec. 21.09. 13 There are a few added wrinkles to this case.
cited Cited "see" Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 561 F.2d 1365, 1371-72 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978).
cited Cited "see" David Fierro v. Ellis C. MacDougal
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 , summarily aff’g, 462 F.Supp. at 404-05 .
cited Cited "see" Walker v. Johnson
E.D. Mich. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See nn. 11-21 and accompanying text supra. 29 . 462 F.Supp. 397 (ND Cal, 1976) aff’d, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 . 30 . 445 U.S. 480 , 100 S.Ct. 1254 , 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980). 31 .
cited Cited "see" Riley v. Johnson
E.D. Mich. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397 (N.D.Cal. 1976), aff’d., 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).
discussed Cited "see" Robert Parker v. A. F. Cook, Individually and in His Capacity as Superintendent of Glades Correctional Institute (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
5th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397, 402 (N.D.Cal. 1976) (3-judge court) (“When a prisoner is transferred from the general prison population to the grossly more onerous conditions of maximum security, be it for disciplinary or for administrative reasons, there is severe impairment of the residuum of liberty which he retains as a prisoner — an impairment which triggers the requirement for due process safeguards.”), aff’d 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978).
cited Cited "see" Hayward v. Procunier
9th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff'd mem., 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978).
cited Cited "see" Hayward v. Procunier
9th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff’d mem., 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978).
discussed Cited "see" Henry J. Mitchell, Jr. v. Milton R. Hicks
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397, 403 (N.D.Cal.1976) (prison regulations defining circumstances under which inmate may be placed in administrative confinement create liberty interest), affirmed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978); Hoss v. Cuyler, 452 F.Supp. 256, 289-90 (E.D.Pa.1978) (administrative directive limiting confinement to specific situations establishes liberty interest in reclassification); Bono v. Saxbe, 450 F.Supp. 934, 941 (E.D.Ill.1978) (policy statement that transfer is based on “inability to adjust” led prisoners to expect that they would remain i…
cited Cited "see" United States v. Wolczik
W.D. Pa. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Dansker, 565 F.2d 1262 (3rd Cir. 1977), cert. dismissed 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Harry Schreiber (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Dansker, 565 F.2d 1262, 1266-67 (3d Cir. 1977), Cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978). 1 7 It is against the plain error standard that we examine the specific argument of the appellant a broad based contention that the trial judge was required to disqualify himself because he was plainly not an impartial jurist as required by 28 U.S.C. § 455 : 8 (a) Any justice, judge, magistrate, or referee in bankruptcy of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 9 (b) He shall …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sunenblick v. Harrell
S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Big O Tire Deal *626 ers v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 408 F.Supp. 1219 (D.Colo.1976), modified, 561 F.2d 1365 (10th Cir.1977), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Universal Money Centers, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., and Universal Bank (2×)
10th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 978 F.2d 947, 958 (7th Cir.1992) (noting that several circuits have found reverse confusion to be a valid basis for a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1879 , 123 L.Ed.2d 497 (1993); see also Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 561 F.2d 1365, 1371-72 (10th Cir.1977) (establishing the doctrine of "reverse confusion"), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978). 10 The following factors are considered in determining whether there is a likelihood…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Freddie T. Battle v. Thomas L. Barton, Darryl G. Spencer
11th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397, 403 (N.D.Cal.), judgement aff'd, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Vastola
D.N.J. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
United States v. Higgs, 713 F.2d 39, 44 (3d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048 , 104 S.Ct. 725 , 79 L.Ed.2d 185 (1984); see also United States v. Dansker, 565 *1267 F.2d 1262, 1264 (3d Cir.1977), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978) (where the credibility of a key witness was placed in question by written affidavits, an evidentiary hearing should be conducted to determine if Brady material was being withheld).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ameritech, Inc., an Ohio Corporation v. American Information Technologies Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, D/B/A Ameritech
6th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 561 F.2d 1365, 1371-72 (10th Cir.1977), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 905 , 54 L.Ed.2d 805 (1978); Plus *965 Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc., 722 F.2d 999, 1003-04 (2d Cir.1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pardo v. Hosier
C.D. Ill. · 1985 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff’d memorandum 434 U.S. 1052 [, 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 ] (1978) (inmate had interest, conferred by statewide regulation and protected by due process, in not being confined in maximum security segregation for administrative reasons unless found, for clearly documented reasons, to come within standard set by state rules) with Love v. Duckworth, 554 F.Supp. 1067, 1070 (N.D.Ind.1983) (inmates had no legitimate expectation that an offender would remain in general population absent a finding of particular events since the procedu…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Patricia Parker v. Helen Corrothers, Warden, Women's Unit Robert Wells, Chairman, Board of Pardons & Paroles A.L. Lockhart, Director of Arkansas Department of Correction, John Bentley Yancey v. Marvin Evans, Jr., Administrator, and Robert Wells, Chairman, Arkansas Board of Probation and Parole
8th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff'd, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978) (approving district court's finding of a liberty interest in state rules, practices and procedures); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 229 , 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2540 , 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976) (state may create liberty interest "by statute, by rule or regulation"); Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 486 n. 12, 103 S.Ct. at 879 n. 12, 74 L.Ed.2d at 698 n. 12 (Stevens, J., dissenting, joined by Brennan, J., and Marshall, J.) (disagreeing with Court's assumption that states create a prisoner's interest …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Parker v. Corrothers
8th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F.Supp. 397 (N.D.Cal. 1976), aff'd, 434 U.S. 1052 , 98 S.Ct. 1223 , 55 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978) (approving district court’s finding of a liberty interest in state rules, practices and procedures); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 229 , 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2540 , 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976) (state may create liberty interest "by statute, by rule or regulation”); Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 486 n. 12, 103 S.Ct. at 879 n. 12, 74 L.Ed.2d at 698 n. 12 (Stevens, J., dissenting, joined by Brennan, J., and Marshall, J.) (disagreeing with Court's assumption that states create a prisoner’s in…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Olim v. Wakinekona
SCOTUS · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F. Supp. 397 (ND Cal. 1976), summarily aff’d, 434 U. S. 1052 (1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Enomoto, Corrections Director, Et Al.
v.
Wright Et Al.
77-504.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 17, 1978.
434 U.S. 1052
Rehnquist.
Cited by 62 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 73%
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting.

Lead Opinion

Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal.

Dissent

Mr. Justice Rehnquist, with whom The Chief Justice joins,

dissenting.

Appellants seek to appeal to this Court a decision of a three-judge District Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253. That section provides for a direct appeal from any “suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.” If no Act of Congress required a three-judge District Court to hear this suit, the decision cannot be appealed directly to this Court pursuant to § 1253 even though a three-judge court may have been in fact convened. Appeal lies instead to the United States Court of Appeals. Under such circumstances, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Board of Regents v. New Left Education Project, 404 U. S. 541 (1972);[*1053] Moody v. Flowers, 387 U. S. 97 (1967); Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246 (1941). Because I believe that no Act of Congress required a three-judge District Court in this case, I believe that the Court therefore errs in considering the merits of the appeal.

Appellee prisoners sued appellants, officials of the California prison system, in the District Court for the Northern District of California contending that constitutionally insufficient procedural safeguards are provided a prisoner who is placed into administrative segregation. A three-judge court was convened under 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (now repealed) which at the time this action was filed provided for such a court whenever the constitutionality of a “State statute ... or of an order made by an administrative board or commission acting under State statutes” is challenged.

It is the second clause of § 2281 that is relevant here since appellees challenge no state statute. The District Court based its jurisdiction on a presumed challenge to various regulations promulgated and issued by the Director of the Department of Corrections of the State of California. According to the District Court, these regulations are “formal orders of statewide application” and thus a challenge to their constitutionality provides jurisdiction under § 2281. Both because the regulations would not appear to be “order [s] made by an administrative board or commission” and because ap-pellees would not appear to challenge the regulations, I do not believe that a three-judge District Court was required by § 2281.

“[T]he three-judge court statute is to be strictly construed.” Board of Regents v. New Left Education Project, supra, at 545. Loose construction of § 2281 to require a three-judge court not only “entails a serious drain upon the federal judicial system” but also, inasmuch as direct review is in this Court, “defeat [s] the purposes of Congress, as expressed by the Jurisdictional Act of February 13, 1925, to keep within[*1054] narrow confines our appellate docket.” Phillips v. United States, supra, at 250. Section 2281 does not speak broadly in terms of “formal orders,” as the District Court would assume. Instead, it requires a three-judge court to be convened only where a plaintiff challenges an “order made by an administrative board or commission.” (Emphasis added.) Here, the orders allegedly under attack were issued by only one man, the Director of the Department of Corrections. While Congress could have given three-judge courts jurisdiction over orders issued by any state official, it did not. When Congress uses exact terms such as “administrative board” and “commission,” it clearly does not intend to include state officials.

Even assuming that an order of a single state official can provide jurisdiction for a three-judge District Court here appellees' complaint does not bring into question the constitutionality of the regulations. As the District Court observed, the regulations provide for prior notice and a hearing “when possible”; these same regulations provide that an inmate should have the assistance of a caseworker or investigating officer when he is unable to prepare his own defense and should be allowed to testify and present documentary evidence; finally, a written statement of the outcome of the hearing is required. Appellees presumably do not object to these procedural safeguards. Instead, they argue that these regulations are not strictly followed, and that wardens are constitutionally obligated to go even further than the regulations require and provide for additional procedural protections such as cross-examination.

There is no allegation that the regulations prohibit additional procedural safeguards. The rules, which are entitled “General Procedures,” simply provide an outline for the procedures to be followed when a prisoner is placed in administrative segregation. Presumably, each warden is free to supplement these minimum procedures as he sees fit. While wardens may be providing the minimum procedures with the[*1055] acquiescence and even approval of the Director, the choice of procedures (beyond the minimum required by the regulations) remains that of the warden and does not bind any other prison in California. Under such circumstances, the regulations of the Director, even if an order of an “administrative board or commission,” is not an order of “general application” and thus will not provide jurisdiction for a three-judge District Court. See Griffin v. County School Board, 377 U. S. 218 (1964).

Because a three-judge court was not required in this case, we do not have appellate jurisdiction and are not free to reach the merits. Board of Regents v. New Left Education Project, supra, and cases cited therein. Under such circumstances in the past, we have vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to enter a fresh decree so that appellants may, if they desire, perfect a timely appeal to the Court of Appeals. I would follow that course here.