Citation network
Vitek Vs. Jones
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 25, 1980
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 480 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Vitek v. JonesSearch
-
U.S. 480 (1980) Vitek v. JonesSearch
-
relied on and the reasons for the decision, and the availability of appointed counsel for indigent prisoners. Miller v. VitekSearch
-
and remanded the case to that court for consideration Page 445 U. S. 486 of the question of mootness. Vitek v. JonesSearch
-
United States v. PhosphateSearch
-
to parole, Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
observance of special parole restrictions, due process protections attach to the decision to revoke parole. Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
U. S. 471 (1972). The same is true of the revocation of probation. Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
U. S. 778 (1973). In Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
Id. at 418 U. S. 557 . In Meachum v. FanoSearch
-
U. S. 215 (1976), and Montanye v. HaymesSearch
-
the predicate for invoking the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment as construed and applied in Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
supra at 427 U. S. 226 -227. Following Meachum v. FanoSearch
-
and Montanye v. HaymesSearch
-
protections when prisoners are transferred to solitary confinement for disciplinary or administrative reasons. Enomoto v. WrightSearch
-
U. S. 1052 (1978), summarily aff'g 462 F.Supp. 397 (ND Cal.1976). Similarly, in Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
supra at 441 U. S. 425 -426. See also Parham v. J.RSearch
-
Court found Jones was exposed in this case, was a proper factor to be weighed by the District Court. Cf. Addington v. TexasSearch
-
Miller v. VitekSearch
-
a valid criminal conviction and prison sentence extinguish a defendant's right to freedom from confinement. Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
is not within the range of conditions of confinement to which a prison sentence subjects an individual. Bastrom v. HeroldSearch
-
Center, by themselves, might not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest retained by a prisoner, see Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
Baxter v. PalmigianoSearch
-
transfer, the District Court properly determined that procedures similar to those required by the Court in Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
an opportunity to challenge the contemplated action and to understand the nature of what is happening to him. Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
not required the automatic appointment of counsel for indigent prisoners facing other deprivations of liberty, Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
that prisoners who are illiterate and uneducated have a greater need for assistance in exercising their rights. Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
it is appropriate that counsel be provided to indigent prisoners whom the State seeks to treat as mentally ill. v. BecauseSearch
-
serving his sentence, he remains subject to the transfer procedures he challenges, unlike the plaintiff in Weinstein v. BradfordSearch
-
A majority of the Justices rejected an identical position in Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
for deprivation of a statutorily created property interest must be analyzed in constitutional terms. Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
Board of Regents v. RothSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial