Citation network
Ponte Vs. Real
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 20, 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. 491 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Ponte v. RealSearch
-
U.S. 491 (1985) Ponte v. RealSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of reasons as to why the disciplinary board refused to allow respondent to call witnesses whom he had requested. Real v. SuperintendentSearch
-
to review this judgment because it seemed to us to go further than our pronouncement on this subject in Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
of Massachusetts, this judgment was affirmed, but for different reasons. That court discussed our decision in Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
supporting the board's denial of an inmate's witness request. 390 Mass. at 405-407, 456 N.E.2d at 1116, citing Hayes v. ThompsonSearch
-
and documentary evidence in his defense before the disciplinary board. We noted in Wolff and repeated in Baxter v. PalmigianoSearch
-
Baxter, supra, at 425 U. S. 321 . See also Hughes v. RoweSearch
-
will rarely be in possession, and of which the superintendent will almost always be in possession. See United States v. NewSearch
-
Campbell v. UnitedSearch
-
to us to go further than our pronouncement on this subject in Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
Nelson v. CommissionerSearch
-
Real v. SuperintendentSearch
-
Lamoureux v. SuperintendentSearch
-
Cassesso v. CommissionerSearch
-
Royce v. CommissionerSearch
-
Cf. Watt v. AlaskaSearch
-
Revere v. MassachusettsSearch
-
is 'nothing in the Federal Constitution that prohibits a State from giving lawmaking power to its courts.' Minnesota v. CloverSearch
-
U.S. at 463 U. S. 247 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment) (footnote omitted). See also Michigan v. LongSearch
-
its judgment, on remand, under a comparable guarantee contained in the State Constitution. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. UptonSearch
-
U. S. 727 (1984), on remand, Commonwealth v. UptonSearch
-
U. S. 992 (1983), on remand, People v. RamosSearch
-
U. S. 553 (1983), on remand, State v. NevilleSearch
-
U. S. 1 (1982), on remand, State v. ChrismanSearch
-
Brown v. AllenSearch
-
witnesses unless his disciplinary board had a legitimate basis for excluding them. This much is clear from Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
Id. at 418 U. S. 566 . See also Baxter v. PalmigianoSearch
-
Burlington Truck Lines v. UnitedSearch
-
reasons when witnesses are excluded, that the right is being scrupulously honored. See Connecticut Bd. of Pardons v. DumschatSearch
-
Harris v. RiveraSearch
-
Hayes v. ThompsonSearch
-
Similarly, Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
Id. at 411 U. S. 791 . See also North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
Kent v. UnitedSearch
-
of the hearing sufficient to outweigh whatever burdens such a requirement would impose on the government. See Black v. RomanoSearch
-
Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial