Citation network
Hudson Vs. Palmer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 03, 1984
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
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 517 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Hudson v. PalmerSearch
-
U.S. 517 (1984) Hudson v. PalmerSearch
-
was not deprived of his property without due process. The Court of Appeals concluded that the decision in Parratt v. TaylorSearch
-
respondent had adequate postdeprivation remedies under Virginia law for any loss suffered. The decision in Parratt v. TaylorSearch
-
seizures. We also granted certiorari in No. 82-6695, the cross-petition, to determine whether our decision in Parratt v. TaylorSearch
-
judgment. The District Court accepted respondent's allegations as true, but held nonetheless, relying on Parratt v. TaylorSearch
-
due process. The court acknowledged that we considered only a claim of negligent property deprivation in Parratt v. TaylorSearch
-
the summary judgment on respondent's claim that the shakedown search was unreasonable. The court recognized that Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
separates one from the other. Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Lee v. WashingtonSearch
-
the Government for redress of their grievances, which includes a reasonable right of access to the courts. Johnson v. AverySearch
-
to exercise their religious freedom guaranteed under the First Amendment. Cruz v. BetoSearch
-
U. S. 817 , 417 U. S. 822 (1974). They enjoy the protection of due process. Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
it is also clear that imprisonment carries with it the circumscription or loss of many significant rights. See Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
of prison facilities, Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
supra, at 418 U. S. 555 , chief among which is internal security, see Pell v. ProcunierSearch
-
expectation of privacy is at stake. Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
Lanza v. NewSearch
-
Marrero v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Court dismissed this portion of respondent's complaint for failure to state a claim. Reasoning under Parratt v. TaylorSearch
-
Appeals affirmed. The question presented for our review in Palmer's cross-petition is whether our decision in Parratt v. TaylorSearch
-
In Parratt v. TaylorSearch
-
Two Terms ago, we reaffirmed our holding in Parratt in Logan v. ZimmermanSearch
-
the state is in a position to provide for predeprivation process. Respondent also contends, citing to Logan v. ZimmermanSearch
-
Elder v. HollandSearch
-
Short v. GriffittsSearch
-
courts, as respondent concedes, see Brief for Respondent and Cross-Petitioner 13, n. 13. See, e.g., Holmes v. WamplerSearch
-
Irshad v. SpannSearch
-
Frazier v. CollinsSearch
-
Whorley v. KarrSearch
-
Daughtry v. ArlingtonSearch
-
Together with No. 82-6695, Palmer v. HudsonSearch
-
against Hudson in state court either for conversion or for detinue, and that, under applicable Virginia law, see Elder v. HollandSearch
-
held that a prisoner retains at least a minimal degree of Fourth Amendment protection in his cell. See United States v. ChamorroSearch
-
United States v. HinckleySearch
-
United States v. LillySearch
-
United States v. StumesSearch
-
Bonner v. CoughlinSearch
-
Second and Ninth Circuits, however, have held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply in a prison cell. See Christman v. SkilmerSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hudson v. PalmerSearch
-
Parratt v. TaylorSearch
-
Johnson v. AverySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial