Citation network
Superintendent Vs. Hill
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 17, 1985
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. 445 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Superintendent v. HillSearch
-
U.S. 445 (1985) Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole v. HillSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
logically follows from Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
review of the sufficiency of evidence where good time credits are revoked in a prison disciplinary proceeding. Ortwein v. SchwabSearch
-
threaten constitutionally protected liberty or property interests. See, e.g., 298 U. S. Joseph Stockyards Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
make determinations implicating fundamental rights is a difficult question of constitutional law. See, e.g., Califano v. SandersSearch
-
never require some form of judicial review of determinations made in prison disciplinary proceedings. Cf. Crowell v. BensonSearch
-
address the constitutional question unless it is necessary to the resolution of the case before the Court. See Johnson v. RobisonSearch
-
Taunton Eastern Little League v. TauntonSearch
-
Mass. 719, 720, n. 1, 452 N.E.2d 211, 212, n. 1 (1983), quoting Reading v. AttorneySearch
-
N.E.2d at 819, n. 2. The state court supported this conclusion by citing its previous decision in Boston Edison Co. v. BoardSearch
-
Concord, 355 Mass. 79, 242 N.E.2d 868 (1968), and the decision of the Appeals Court of Massachusetts in Cepulonis v. CommissionerSearch
-
available writ, and did not narrow the relief formerly obtainable under the statute. See, e.g., Boston Edison Co. v. BostonSearch
-
parties argued that the evidence was insufficient to meet standards imposed by state law. See also 1001 Plays, Inc. v. MayorSearch
-
McSweeney v. TownSearch
-
an administrative decision is challenged on federal constitutional grounds. See, e.g., Taunton Eastern Little League v. TauntonSearch
-
rule of judicial restraint requiring us to avoid unnecessary resolution of constitutional issues, see, e.g., Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
Pet. for Cert. i, 20-21. In Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
challenge the holding below that Massachusetts law creates a liberty interest in good time credits. See also Nelson v. CommissionerSearch
-
and depend on a balancing of the interests affected by the relevant government action. E.g., Cafeteria Workers v. McElroySearch
-
be susceptible to manipulation, and preserving the disciplinary process as a means of rehabilitation. See, e.g., Ponte v. RealSearch
-
important liberty interest violates due process if the decision is not supported by any evidence. See, e.g., Douglas v. BuderSearch
-
Schware v. BoardSearch
-
Willis v. CicconeSearch
-
at 418 U. S. 556 , and neither the amount of evidence necessary to support such a conviction, see Jackson v. VirginiaSearch
-
Nelson v. CommissionerSearch
-
not appropriate for this Court even if a diligent search will disclose error in the record. Cf. United States v. HastingSearch
-
See Marino v. RagenSearch
-
Florida v. RodriguezSearch
-
on the issue have concluded that some evidence must support a decision to revoke good-time credits. See, e.g., Adams v. GunnellSearch
-
Inglese v. WardenSearch
-
Rusher v. ArnoldSearch
-
standard a few years ago. Aikens v. LashSearch
-
standard. See Brown-Bey v. UnitedSearch
-
Dawson v. SmithSearch
-
Jackson v. CarlsonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Superintendent v. HillSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial