Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 28 Chapter 11
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 852 (2026)

Disciplinary committee; hearing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 004 : DISCIPLINE AND CONTROL OF INMATES

(Cite as: 28 V.S.A. § 852)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: LaFaso v. Patrissi, 633 A.2d 695 (Vt. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
LaFaso v. Patrissi, 633 A.2d 695 (Vt. 1993). · cites it 2× “DOC Policy 1021; see also 28 V.S.A. § 852 (authorizing disciplinary committee and hearing procedures).”
Rebideau v. Stoneman, 398 F. Supp. 805 (D. Vt. 1975). · cites it 3× “Vermont’s disciplinary hearing procedure is set out in 28 V.S.A. § 852 and is supplemented by Disciplinary Regulations revised January 20, 1975.”
Zachary Rose v. Michael Touchette, Comm'r, Dep't of Corr., 2021 VT 77 (Vt. 2021). “He notes that the statute allows DOC to impose appropriate punishment in response to a sustained disciplinary charge, see 28 V.S.A. § 852(c), and DOC disciplinary policy lists 10 removal from programming for up to thirty days as an approved sanction, see Vermont Department of…”
In Re Nash, 556 A.2d 88 (Vt. 1988). “at 566-70 (disciplinary proceedings are subject to reasonable limitations on calling of witnesses, confrontation, cross-examination; Court “not prepared to hold” that inmates have right to counsel in such proceeding); 28 V.S.A. § 852(b) (subject to reasonable rules, inmate is…”
smith v. pallito (Vt. Super. Ct. 2023). · cites it 3× “” 28 V.S.A. § 852(b)(2). Inmates also have the right—subject to reasonable rules—to call and question any available witness who has relevant knowledge of the incident.”
Smith v. Pallito (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). · cites it 3× “” 28 V.S.A. § 852(b)(2). Inmates also have the right—subject to reasonable rules—to call and question any available witness who has relevant knowledge of the incident.”
McLaughlin v. Baker (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “28 V.S.A. § 852(b) (emphasis added). There is no other relevant hearing requirement in the applicable statutes.”
Russell v. Pallito (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015). “Conclusions of Law Mr. Russell challenges the conduct of the notice and hearing on procedural grounds based on standards required by the United States Constitution, the Vermont Constitution, 28 V.”
LeClair v. Pallito (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). “” 28 V.S.A. § 852(b)(2). “A prisoner has a constitutionally protected interest in disciplinary hearings that are not so lacking in procedural safeguards that they create substantial doubt that these prisoners committed the offenses for which they were disciplined.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 852(b) — 2 cases
In Re Nash, 556 A.2d 88 (Vt. 1988). “at 566-70 (disciplinary proceedings are subject to reasonable limitations on calling of witnesses, confrontation, cross-examination; Court “not prepared to hold” that inmates have right to counsel in such proceeding); 28 V.S.A. § 852(b) (subject to reasonable rules, inmate is…”
McLaughlin v. Baker (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “28 V.S.A. § 852(b) (emphasis added). There is no other relevant hearing requirement in the applicable statutes.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 852(b)(1) — 1 case
Russell v. Pallito (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015). “Conclusions of Law Mr. Russell challenges the conduct of the notice and hearing on procedural grounds based on standards required by the United States Constitution, the Vermont Constitution, 28 V.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 852(b)(2) — 4 cases
Rebideau v. Stoneman, 398 F. Supp. 805 (D. Vt. 1975). “Vermont’s disciplinary hearing procedure is set out in 28 V.S.A. § 852 and is supplemented by Disciplinary Regulations revised January 20, 1975.”
smith v. pallito (Vt. Super. Ct. 2023). “” 28 V.S.A. § 852(b)(2). Inmates also have the right—subject to reasonable rules—to call and question any available witness who has relevant knowledge of the incident.”
Smith v. Pallito (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). “” 28 V.S.A. § 852(b)(2). Inmates also have the right—subject to reasonable rules—to call and question any available witness who has relevant knowledge of the incident.”
LeClair v. Pallito (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). “” 28 V.S.A. § 852(b)(2). “A prisoner has a constitutionally protected interest in disciplinary hearings that are not so lacking in procedural safeguards that they create substantial doubt that these prisoners committed the offenses for which they were disciplined.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 852(b)(3) — 2 cases
smith v. pallito (Vt. Super. Ct. 2023). “” 28 V.S.A. § 852(b)(2). Inmates also have the right—subject to reasonable rules—to call and question any available witness who has relevant knowledge of the incident.”
Smith v. Pallito (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). “” 28 V.S.A. § 852(b)(2). Inmates also have the right—subject to reasonable rules—to call and question any available witness who has relevant knowledge of the incident.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 28, § 852(c) — 2 cases
LaFaso v. Patrissi, 633 A.2d 695 (Vt. 1993). “DOC Policy 1021; see also 28 V.S.A. § 852 (authorizing disciplinary committee and hearing procedures).”
Zachary Rose v. Michael Touchette, Comm'r, Dep't of Corr., 2021 VT 77 (Vt. 2021). “He notes that the statute allows DOC to impose appropriate punishment in response to a sustained disciplinary charge, see 28 V.S.A. § 852(c), and DOC disciplinary policy lists 10 removal from programming for up to thirty days as an approved sanction, see Vermont Department of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.