neutral and detached hearing (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

neutral and detached hearing in Florida

5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2006 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Thompson v. Reivitzgreen
ca7 · 1984 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006Thompson v. Reivitz, 746 F.2d 397, 399 (7th Cir.1983), cert. den., 471 U.S. 1103 , 105 S.Ct. 2332 , 85 L.Ed.2d 849 (1985).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

CaseCitedYears
Morrissey v. Brewer green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

2006In Morrissey , the Court outlined the minimum due process rights to which parolees are entitled: the right to notice, limited discovery, opportunity to be present and to offer evidence, confrontation, a neutral and detached hearing body and a written statement of the reasons for the revocation. 408 U.S. at 489 , 92 S.Ct. at 2604 .

2006In Morrissey , the Court outlined the minimum due process rights to which parolees are entitled: the right to notice, limited discovery, opportunity to be present and to offer evidence, confrontation, a neutral and detached hearing body and a written statement of the reasons for the revocation. 408 U.S. at 489 , 92 S.Ct. at 2604 .

22004–2006
Gagnon v. Scarpelli red
scotus · 1973
2 sentences

2004In Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that the elemental due process rights to be afforded to a person on parole in a violation hearing include "a neutral and detached hearing body." See also Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973).

2004In Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that the elemental due process rights to be afforded to a person on parole in a violation hearing include "a neutral and detached hearing body." See also Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973).

21982–2004
Williams v. United States green
scotus · 1985
1 sentence

2006Thompson v. Reivitz, 746 F.2d 397, 399 (7th Cir.1983), cert. den., 471 U.S. 1103 , 105 S.Ct. 2332 , 85 L.Ed.2d 849 (1985).

12006–2006
Thompson v. Reivitz green
scotus · 1985
1 sentence

2006Thompson v. Reivitz, 746 F.2d 397, 399 (7th Cir.1983), cert. den., 471 U.S. 1103 , 105 S.Ct. 2332 , 85 L.Ed.2d 849 (1985).

12006–2006
Dugger v. Delta Airlines green
scotus · 1985
1 sentence

2006Thompson v. Reivitz, 746 F.2d 397, 399 (7th Cir.1983), cert. den., 471 U.S. 1103 , 105 S.Ct. 2332 , 85 L.Ed.2d 849 (1985).

12006–2006
Myers v. Askew neutral
fladistctapp · 1976
1 sentence

1980Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Myers v. Askew, 338 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

11980–1980
Wolff v. McDonnell green
scotus · 1974
2 sentences

1980Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Myers v. Askew, 338 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

1980Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Myers v. Askew, 338 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

11980–1980
Singletary v. State green
fladistctapp · 1974
1 sentence

1978Upon such arrest, the parole agreement or probation order shall immediately be temporarily revoked and such person shall remain in custody until a hearing by the parole and probation commission or the court. [3] The Court in Gagnon, supra, cited the essential elements of due process necessary in a final revocation hearing: (1) written notice of claimed violation; (2) disclosure of evidence against the probationer; (3) an opportunity to be heard and present witnesses and evidence; (4) the right to confront witnesses in most instances; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body; (6) a written state

11978–1978
Bernhardt v. State green
fla · 1974
1 sentence

1978Upon such arrest, the parole agreement or probation order shall immediately be temporarily revoked and such person shall remain in custody until a hearing by the parole and probation commission or the court. [3] The Court in Gagnon, supra, cited the essential elements of due process necessary in a final revocation hearing: (1) written notice of claimed violation; (2) disclosure of evidence against the probationer; (3) an opportunity to be heard and present witnesses and evidence; (4) the right to confront witnesses in most instances; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body; (6) a written state

11978–1978
State v. Spratling green
fla · 1976
1 sentence

1978Upon such arrest, the parole agreement or probation order shall immediately be temporarily revoked and such person shall remain in custody until a hearing by the parole and probation commission or the court. [3] The Court in Gagnon, supra, cited the essential elements of due process necessary in a final revocation hearing: (1) written notice of claimed violation; (2) disclosure of evidence against the probationer; (3) an opportunity to be heard and present witnesses and evidence; (4) the right to confront witnesses in most instances; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body; (6) a written state

11978–1978
Finley v. State neutral
fladistctapp · 1976
1 sentence

1978Upon such arrest, the parole agreement or probation order shall immediately be temporarily revoked and such person shall remain in custody until a hearing by the parole and probation commission or the court. [3] The Court in Gagnon, supra, cited the essential elements of due process necessary in a final revocation hearing: (1) written notice of claimed violation; (2) disclosure of evidence against the probationer; (3) an opportunity to be heard and present witnesses and evidence; (4) the right to confront witnesses in most instances; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body; (6) a written state

11978–1978

Where else courts name it

TX 191 (1986–2026) IN 88 (1974–2026) OH 59 (1998–2026) TN 29 (2001–2022) WA 18 (1999–2024) PA 18 (1979–2026) MS 15 (2004–2021) WI 15 (1976–2014) KS 13 (1997–2024) CA 12 (1975–2025) AL 12 (1986–2018) IL 8 (1979–2005) CO 7 (1985–2026) WV 5 (1987–2019) FL 5 (1978–2006) NM 4 (1980–2019) NE 3 (1976–1986) KY 3 (2010–2021) CT 3 (1988–2006) NV 2 (1991–2015) AR 2 (2012–2016) MI 2 (1982–1984) IA 2 (2008–2008) MT 2 (1986–2025) MA 2 (2000–2003) NY 2 (1976–2003) DE 2 (2017–2019) SC 2 (2006–2007) MN 2 (2016–2017) UT 2 (1990–2005) ID 2 (1983–2006)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check