Citation network
Youngberg Vs. Romeo
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 18, 1982
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
-
U.S. 307 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Youngberg v. RomeoSearch
-
U.S. 307 (1982) Youngberg v. RomeoSearch
-
procedures does not deprive him of all substantive liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Vitek v. JonesSearch
-
protected substantively by the Due Process Clause. Ingraham v. WrightSearch
-
U. S. 673 (1977). And that right is not extinguished by lawful confinement, even for penal purposes. See Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
a State is under no constitutional duty to provide substantive services for those within its border. See Harris v. McRaeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
necessarily has considerable discretion in determining the nature and scope of its responsibilities. See Richardson v. BelcherSearch
-
the individual's interest in liberty against the State's asserted reasons for restraining individual liberty. In Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish. Cf. Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
interests. Such conditions of confinement would comport fully with the purpose of respondent's commitment. Cf. Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
standard was adopted by this Court in Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
under the Eighth Amendment. Although the District Court did not refer to Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
on this defense, App. 76a, and it was not challenged by respondent. 644 F.2d at 173, n. 1. After citing Pierson v. RaySearch
-
U. S. 547 (1967), and Scheuer v. RhodesSearch
-
and the lack of any guidance on this issue from the lower federal courts, we decline to consider it now. See Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
Duignan v. UnitedSearch
-
Old Jordan Milling Co. v. SocieteSearch
-
Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
Addington v. TexasSearch
-
Rhodes v. ChapmanSearch
-
In Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
Welsch v. LikinsSearch
-
Wyatt v. AderholtSearch
-
F.2d 1305 (CA5 1974), aff'g Wyatt v. StickneySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Youngberg v. RomeoSearch
-
the Due Process Clause. Ingraham v. WrightSearch
-
See Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
See Harris v. McRaeSearch
-
See Richardson v. BelcherSearch
-
In Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
Cf. Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
Cf. Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
and Scheuer v. RhodesSearch
-
See Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
Addington v. TexasSearch
-
Wyatt v. StickneySearch
-
Vitek v. JonesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial