Cases pin-citing Hewitt

Hewitt v. Helms · 1983 · 121 pinpoint citations from 46 cases, 33 distinct passages.

Hasanati v. State of Florida · 2022-09-06 · S.D. New York · pin 459 U.S. at 460

“[W]e have construed Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995), to mean that a state ‘may under certain circumstances create liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause.’”

State v. Delvallie · 2022-02-17 · Ohio Court of Appeals · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“We have repeatedly said both that prison officials have broad administrative and discretionary authority over the institutions they manage and that lawfully incarcerated persons retain only a narrow range of protected liberty interests.”

State v. Sealey · 2021-06-10 · Ohio Court of Appeals · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

Fauconier v. Clarke · 2017-06-28 · W.D. Virginia · pin 74 L. Ed. 2d at 675

“[T]he safe and efficient operation of a prison on a day-to-day basis has traditionally been entrusted to the expertise of prison officials.”

Muniz-Savage v. Addison · 2016-05-23 · Tenth Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“[t]he repeated use of explicitly mandatory language in connection with requiring specific substantive predicates demands a conclusion that the State has created a protected liberty interest.”

Proctor v. LeClaire · 2013-04-25 · Second Circuit · pin 74 L. Ed. 2d at 675

“administrative segregation may not be used as a pretext for indefinite confinement of an inmate”

Hertz v. Macomber · 2013-03-22 · Alaska Supreme Court · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

"[TJhe guarantee of due process does not provide ... a right to avoid segregation from the general prison population."

Lymon v. Aramark Corp. · 2010-07-07 · D. New Mexico · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“We are persuaded that the repeated use of explicitly mandatory language in connection with requiring specific substantive predicates demands a conclusion that the State has created a protected liberty interest.”

Dodge v. Shoemaker · 2010-03-11 · D. Colorado · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“the transfer of an inmate to less amenable and more restrictive quarters for nonpunitive reasons is well within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence”

Mitchell v. Dodrill · 2010-03-05 · M.D. Pennsylvania · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“It is plain that the transfer of an inmate to less amenable and more restrictive quarters for nonpunitive reasons is well within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence.”

Merriweather v. Reynolds · 2008-05-11 · D. South Carolina · 2 pin-cites · pin 459 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“The transfer of an inmate to less amenable and more restrictive quarters for non-punitive reasons is well within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence.”

Howard Ex Rel. Estate of Howard v. Bayes · 2006-08-09 · Sixth Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“[T]he repeated use of explicitly mandatory language in connection with requiring specific substantive predicates demands a conclusion that the State has created a protected liberty interest.”

Bernstein v. Pataki · 2005-12-13 · S.D. New York · 2 pin-cites · pin 103 S. Ct. at 460

“specified substantive predicates”

Longval v. O'Toole · 2005-01-28 · Massachusetts Superior Court · pin 459 U.S. at 460

“Of course, administrative segregation may not be used as a pretext for indefinite confinement of an inmate. Prison officials must engage in some sort of periodic review of the confinement of such inmates”

Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock · 2004-04-29 · Tenth Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“the repeated use of explicitly mandatory language in connection with requiring specific substantive predicates demands a conclusion that the State has created a protected liberty interest”

Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock · 2004-04-29 · Tenth Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

"the repeated use of explicitly mandatory language in connection with requiring specific substantive predicates demands a conclusion that the State has created a protected liberty interest"

Thompson v. Eason · 2003-03-28 · N.D. Texas · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“The safety of the institution’s guards and inmates is perhaps the most fundamental responsibility of the prison administration.”

Entertainment Network, Inc. v. Lappin · 2001-04-18 · S.D. Indiana · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“[t]he safety of the institution’s guards and inmates is perhaps the fundamental responsibility of the prison administration”

Benjamin v. Kerik · 2000-06-06 · S.D. New York · pin 103 S. Ct. at 864

“[A] state creates a protected liberty interest by placing substantive limitations on official discretion. An inmate must show ‘that particularized standards or criteria guide the State’s decisionmakers.’”

Brown, Ernest v. Plaut, William M. · 1997-12-16 · D.C. Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“An inmate must merely receive some notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to present his views to the prison official charged with deciding whether to transfer him to administrative segregation”

Clarke v. Stalder · 1997-09-09 · Fifth Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“[t]he safety of the institution’s guards and inmates is perhaps the fundamental responsibility of the prison administration”

Clarke v. Stalder · 1997-09-09 · Fifth Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

"[t]he safety of the institution's guards and inmates is perhaps the fundamental responsibility of the prison administration"

Christianson v. Clarke · 1996-06-26 · D. Nebraska · pin 103 S. Ct. at 864

“[A]dministrative segregation is the sort of confinement that inmates should reasonably anticipate receiving at some point in their incarceration.”

David Joseph Sheehan v. Howard Beyer, Superintendent Wilbur Smith, Captain Boyd, Sergeant Pat La Flore, Social Worker · 1995-04-06 · Third Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

Southern Illinois Grain Inspection Service, Inc. v. United States · 1995-03-17 · S.D. Indiana · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“the repeated use of explicitly mandatory language in connection with requiring specific substantive predicates demands a conclusion that the State has created a protected liberty interest”

Madrid v. Gomez · 1995-01-10 · N.D. California · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“We realize that in prison disciplinary proceedings hearsay may serve a useful purpose and we do not preclude it”

Hodges v. Jones · 1995-01-04 · N.D. New York · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“on balance we are persuaded that the repeated use of explicitly mandatory language in connection with requiring specific substantive predicates demands a conclusion that the State has created a protected liberty interest.”

Stephen Sultenfuss, Charles McMulling v. Wayne Snow, Jr., James T. Morris, Mobley Howell, Michael H. Wing, Bettye O. Hutchings, Michael J. Bowers · 1994-10-05 · Eleventh Circuit · 6 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

"If no behavior violation has occurred, the inmate must be released as soon as the reason for the security concern has abated...."

Hodge ex rel. Hodge v. Jones · 1994-07-19 · Fourth Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“[A] State may create a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause through its enactment of certain statutory or regulatory measures.”

Hodge v. Jones · 1994-07-19 · Fourth Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

"[A] State may create a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause through its enactment of certain statutory or regulatory measures."

Thompson v. County of Medina · 1994-06-23 · Sixth Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“There are persuasive reasons why we should be loath to transpose all of the reasoning in the cases just cited to the situation where the statute and regulations govern the day-to-day administration of a prison system.”

Thompson v. County Of Medina · 1994-06-23 · Sixth Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

"There are persuasive reasons why we should be loath to transpose all of the reasoning in the cases just cited to the situation where the statute and regulations govern the day-to-day administration of a prison system."

Bruns v. State · 1993-07-21 · Supreme Court of Iowa · 2 pin-cites · pin 103 S. Ct. at 460

“lawfully incarcerated persons retain only a narrow range of protected liberty interests”

Verrett v. Stempson · 1993-04-06 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“the repeated use of explicitly mandatory language in connection with requiring specific substantive predicates demands a conclusion that the State has created a protected liberty interest”

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Reilly · 1993-01-22 · D.C. Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“shall” is “language of an unmistakably mandatory character”

Carter v. Thompson · 1992-12-16 · M.D. Florida · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“we have never held that statutes and rules governing daily operation of a prison system confers any liberty interest in and of themselves”

Dix v. County of Shasta · 1992-06-18 · Ninth Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

"mere fact that Pennsylvania has created a careful procedural structure to regulate the use of administrative segregation [does not indicate] the existence of a protected liberty interest"

Mujahid v. Apao · 1992-06-03 · D. Hawaii · pin 74 L. Ed. 2d at 675

“The adoption of such procedural guidelines [for administrative segregation], without more, suggests that it is these restrictions alone, and not those federal courts might also impose under the Fourteenth Amendment, that the State [of Pennsylvania] chose to require.”

Dix v. County of Shasta · 1992-05-08 · Ninth Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“mere fact that Pennsylvania has created a careful procedural structure to regulate the use of administrative segregation [does not indicate] the existence of a protected liberty interest”

Haynes v. Lambor · 1992-02-04 · N.D. Illinois · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“administrative segregation is the sort of confinement that inmates should reasonably anticipate receiving at some point in their incarceration.”

James L. Cain v. Michael P. Lane · 1988-10-07 · Seventh Circuit · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“administrative segregation is the sort of confinement that inmates should reasonably anticipate receiving at some point in their incarceration.”

Steck v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc. · 1987-06-04 · D. New Jersey · pin 74 L. Ed. 2d at 675

“questions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration”

Hilliard v. Scully · 1986-12-04 · S.D. New York · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

“rumor, reputation and even more imponderable factors may suffice to spark potentially disastrous incidents” in “the violatile atmosphere of a prison.”

King v. Jenkins · 1985-01-23 · E.D. Pennsylvania · 3 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 460

Evans v. Headley · 1983-06-22 · S.D. New York · 2 pin-cites · pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 675

“Due Process Clause requires only an informal nonadversary review of evidence”

Page 1 of 3 Next →