fair and impartial hearing in Michigan

2003The fact-finding hearing may be held at a state correctional facility or at or near the location of the alleged violation.[ 2 ] In Stewart v Dep’t of Corrections, 382 Mich 474, 477 ; 170 NW2d 16 (1969), this Court considered the predecessor of MCL 791.240a, which stated: “Whenever a paroled prisoner is accused of a violation of his parole, other than the commission of, and conviction for, a felony or misdemeanor under the laws of this state, he shall be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing of such charges within 30 days before 2 members of the parole board under such rules and regulations

2003The fact-finding hearing may be held at a state correctional facility or at or near the location of the alleged violation.[ 2 ] In Stewart v Dep’t of Corrections, 382 Mich 474, 477 ; 170 NW2d 16 (1969), this Court considered the predecessor of MCL 791.240a, which stated: “Whenever a paroled prisoner is accused of a violation of his parole, other than the commission of, and conviction for, a felony or misdemeanor under the laws of this state, he shall be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing of such charges within 30 days before 2 members of the parole board under such rules and regulations

1984Also, in Gibson, supra, the Court affirmed the district court’s finding that the Alabama Board of Optometry was biased and could not provide a fair and impartial hearing to optometrists charged with unprofessional conduct for working for a corporation.

1984Also, in Gibson, supra, the Court affirmed the district court's finding that the Alabama Board of *436 Optometry was biased and could not provide a fair and impartial hearing to optometrists charged with unprofessional conduct for working for a corporation.

1977Therefore, should the plaintiff prevail on the issue of whether the defendant acted arbitrarily, capriciously or *640 in bad faith, this Court will then order the defendant University to give the plaintiff a fair and impartial hearing on his dismissal order.” (Citations omitted.) 244 F Supp at 160 -161 In Greenhill v Bailey, supra, the Eighth Circuit similarly remanded for an administrative hearing where the student would be able to contest the reasons for his dismissal.

1970The pertinent statute provided: "Whenever a parole prisoner is accused of a violation of his parole * * * he shall be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing of such charges. *757 * * * Upon such hearing such parole prisoner shall be allowed to be heard by counsel of his own choice, at his own expense, and may defend himself." MCLA § 791.240 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.2310). [1] (Emphasis supplied.) In Saunders v. Department of Corrections, Parole Board (1968), 15 Mich App 183 , leave to appeal denied (1969), 381 Mich 818 , cert. den. (1970), 396 US 1025 ( 90 S Ct 602 , 24 L Ed 2d 520 ), [2] we

1970The pertinent statute provided: “Whenever a parole prisoner is accused of a violation of his parole * * * he shall be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing of such charges. * * * Upon such hearing such parole prisoner shall he allowed to be heard by counsel of his own choice, at Ms own expense, and may defend himself.” MCLA §791.240 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.2310). 1 (Emphasis supplied.) In Saunders v. Department of Corrections, Parole Board (1968), 15 Mich App 183 , leave to appeal denied (1969), 381 Mich 818 , cert. den. (1970), 396 US 1025 ( 90 S Ct 602 , 24 L Ed 2d 520 ), 2 we held that t

1970The pertinent statute provided: "Whenever a parole prisoner is accused of a violation of his parole * * * he shall be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing of such charges. *757 * * * Upon such hearing such parole prisoner shall be allowed to be heard by counsel of his own choice, at his own expense, and may defend himself." MCLA § 791.240 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.2310). [1] (Emphasis supplied.) In Saunders v. Department of Corrections, Parole Board (1968), 15 Mich App 183 , leave to appeal denied (1969), 381 Mich 818 , cert. den. (1970), 396 US 1025 ( 90 S Ct 602 , 24 L Ed 2d 520 ), [2] we

1970The pertinent statute provided: “Whenever a parole prisoner is accused of a violation of his parole * * * he shall be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing of such charges. * * * Upon such hearing such parole prisoner shall he allowed to be heard by counsel of his own choice, at Ms own expense, and may defend himself.” MCLA §791.240 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.2310). 1 (Emphasis supplied.) In Saunders v. Department of Corrections, Parole Board (1968), 15 Mich App 183 , leave to appeal denied (1969), 381 Mich 818 , cert. den. (1970), 396 US 1025 ( 90 S Ct 602 , 24 L Ed 2d 520 ), 2 we held that t

1968It provides in part: “Whenever a paroled prisoner is accused of a violation of his parole * * * he shall be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing of such charges. * * * Upon such hearing such paroled prisoner shall be allotved to be heard by counsel of his own choice, at his own expense, and may defend himself.” (Emphasis supplied.) *185 The facts of this case differ materially from those in the cases of People v. Wood (1966), 2 Mich App 342 and Mempa v. Rhay (1967), 389 US 128 ( 88 S Ct 254 , 19 L Ed 2d 336 ).

1968It provides in part: “Whenever a paroled prisoner is accused of a violation of his parole * * * he shall be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing of such charges. * * * Upon such hearing such paroled prisoner shall be allotved to be heard by counsel of his own choice, at his own expense, and may defend himself.” (Emphasis supplied.) *185 The facts of this case differ materially from those in the cases of People v. Wood (1966), 2 Mich App 342 and Mempa v. Rhay (1967), 389 US 128 ( 88 S Ct 254 , 19 L Ed 2d 336 ).

1968It provides in part: “Whenever a paroled prisoner is accused of a violation of his parole * * * he shall be entitled to a fair and impartial hearing of such charges. * * * Upon such hearing such paroled prisoner shall be allotved to be heard by counsel of his own choice, at his own expense, and may defend himself.” (Emphasis supplied.) *185 The facts of this case differ materially from those in the cases of People v. Wood (1966), 2 Mich App 342 and Mempa v. Rhay (1967), 389 US 128 ( 88 S Ct 254 , 19 L Ed 2d 336 ).