How cited: People v. Superior Court (Hamilton) · Go Syfert

People v. Superior Court (Hamilton) (1991)

green · 9 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 4 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Green 4
Sort: By significance · Most recent
green Eugene Hamilton v. D. Fragoso (1995)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Moreover, as the California Court of Appeal pointed out in People v. Superior Court, 230 Cal.App.3d 1592, 1596 (1991), the disciplinary procedure at issue in Clutchette "did not include a prehearing review by a supervisor." The eligibility of officials in Hopkins' situation--lacking personal acquaintance with the case but having conducted a prehearing review--was neither at issue in Clutchette nor obviously covered by its rule about "personal" knowledge.
green In re Fratus (2012)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
(People v. Superior Court (Hamilton) (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1592, 1594 [ 281 Cal.Rptr. 900 ].) Subdivisions (c) through (f) of California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3315 pertain to the procedure for and disposition of the inmate’s hearing on the alleged serious disciplinary offense.
green Department of Corr. v. OFF. OF ADMIN. HEARINGS (1997)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
(See Thor v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 725, 744-745 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 357 , 855 P.2d 375 ]; People v. Superior Court (Hamilton) (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1592, 1595 [ 281 Cal.Rptr. 900 ].) Additionally, the procedural safeguards set forth in the Keyhea injunction are more than adequate under the United States Constitution and any additional safeguards not called for by statute or constitutional concerns would create an undue burden on the state. *786 Neither the DMH nor the…
green People v. Goodloe (1995)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
(Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) 418 U.S. 539, 556 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 935, 950-951 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 ]; People v. Superior Court (Hamilton) (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1592, 1595 [ 281 Cal.Rptr. 900 ].) We emphasize that the administrative procedures utilized by the Department in making an ineligibility determination are not before us in this appeal, and we express no view as to their validity.