Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 39 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Travis Denny v. Paul Schultz.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Travis Denny v. Paul Schultz Anchor | green | “need only find that the hearing officer's decision had 'some basis in fact' in order to affirm the decision as comporting with the due process clause” | 13 |
| 2 | Speight v. Minor | green | “the 'some evidence' standard does not require . . . independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses or weighing of the evidence.” | 10 |
| 3 | Joel Meyers v. Noah Alldredge, Warden, United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania | green | “prohibits only those officials who have a direct personal or otherwise substantial involvement . . . in the circumstances underlying the charge from sitting on the disciplinary body.” | 6 |
| 4 | Steven McGee v. William Scism | green | “finding essentially checkmates a retaliation claim” | 4 |
| 5 | Damien Donahue v. J. Grondolsky | green | “united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit . . . has held that the rule of brady v. maryland requiring the disclosure of material exculpatory evidence applies to prison disciplinary proceedings.” | 3 |
| 6 | Miguel Guerrero v. Monica Recktenwald | green | “pursuant to 28 c.f.r. 541.8 (a)(1), a dho has the authority to find that an inmate 'committed the prohibited act(s) charged, and/or a similar prohibited act(s) as described in the incident report.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.