16 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wolff v. McDonnellgreen2 sentences2020A prisoner's rights recognized in Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-66 , include: • an impartial hearing; • a written notice of the charges to enable inmates to prepare a defense; 8 • a written statement of the findings by the fact-finders as to the evidence and the reasons for the decision; and • the opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence. 2001The Wolff Court held that certain due process procedures in disciplinary hearings include an impartial hearing, a written notice of the charges to enable inmates to prepare a defense, a written statement of the findings by the factfinders as to the evidence and the reasons for the decision, and the opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence. 418 U.S. at 563-66 . | 1 | 6 |
Washington v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2022Washington, 37 Kan. 2020When we evaluate the second prong of the due process analysis—the nature and extent of the process due— "[t]he limited rights that a prisoner has in a prison disciplinary proceeding include '"an impartial hearing, a written notice of the charges to enable inmates to prepare a defense, a written statement of the findings by the factfinders as to the evidence and the reasons for the decision, and the opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence.'" [Citations omitted.]" Washington, 37 Kan. | 1 | 6 |
Brown v. Smithgreen1 sentence2026Testimony of confidential informants cannot be given any weight absent a "determination made by the prison staff that indicated that the informant was reliable." Brown v. Smith, 828 F.2d 1493, 1495 (10th Cir. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Habeas Corpus Application of Pierpoint
green
2 sentences2022Instead, inmates in disciplinary proceedings have only limited rights, including "an impartial hearing, a written notice of the charges to enable [the inmate] to prepare a defense, a written statement of the findings by the factfinders as to the evidence and the reasons for the decision, and the opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence." In re Habeas Corpus Application of Pierpoint, 271 Kan. 620 , Syl. ¶ 6, 24 P.3d 128 (2001). 2022Instead, inmates in disciplinary proceedings have only limited rights, including "an impartial hearing, a written notice of the charges to enable [the inmate] to prepare a defense, a written statement of the findings by the factfinders as to the evidence and the reasons for the decision, and the opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence." In re Habeas Corpus Application of Pierpoint, 271 Kan. 620 , Syl. ¶ 6, 24 P.3d 128 (2001). | 7 | 2005–2026 |
Hogue v. Bruce
green
2 sentences2026Hogue, 279 Kan. at 851 (quoting In re Habeas Corpus Application of Pierpoint, 271 Kan. 620, 627 , 24 P.3d 128 [2001]). 2007The limited rights that a prisoner has in a prison disciplinary proceeding include “ ‘an impartial hearing, a written notice of the charges to enable inmates to prepare a defense, a written statement of the findings by the factfinders as to the evidence and the reasons for the decision, and the opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence.’ ” 279 Kan. at 851 (citing Pierpoint, 271 Kan. at 627 ). | 2 | 2007–2026 |
Swafford v. McKune
green
1 sentence2017Sioafford, 46 Kan. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.