Citation network
Black Vs. Romano
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. 606 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Black v. RomanoSearch
-
U.S. 606 (1985) Black v. RomanoSearch
-
the hearing body finds good cause for not allowing confrontation, and the right to assistance of counsel, Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
imposes procedural and substantive limits on the revocation of the conditional liberty created by probation. Bearden v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
such alternatives. These requirements, the courts below held, follow Page 471 U. S. 611 from Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
U. S. 471 (1972), and Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
due process, neither decision purports to restrict the substantive grounds for revoking probation or parole. Bearden v. GeorgiaSearch
-
burden the revocation proceeding without significantly advancing the interests of the probationer. Cf. Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
against revocation of probation in a constitutionally unfair manner. As we observed in another context in Harris v. RiveraSearch
-
basis for review to determine if the decision rests on permissible grounds supported by the evidence. Cf. Douglas v. BuderSearch
-
the interests involved in a manner that satisfies procedural due process. B The Court's decision in Bearden v. GeorgiaSearch
-
obligated to make independent findings and conclusions apart from any recommendation of the probation officer. Moore v. StampsSearch
-
expressly so declaring, recognized his discretionary power to either revoke or continue probation. Cf. Townsend v. SainSearch
-
process, is, like all due process questions, to be analyzed under the three-factor standard set forth in Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
allows probation to be revoked for any reason at all, or for any probation violation. On the contrary, under Bearden v. GeorgiaSearch
-
an interest in assuring that the probationer is not deprived of this opportunity without reason. See also Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
See Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
-
that probation is no longer appropriate to satisfy the State's legitimate penological interests. Williams v. IllinoisSearch
-
Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
Hewitt v. HelmsSearch
-
Dorszynski v. UnitedSearch
-
Harris v. RiveraSearch
-
This principle underlies Douglas v. BuderSearch
-
unforeseeable and surprising an interpretation of the special probation condition as to violate due process. See Bouie v. CitySearch
-
This norm of regularity in governmental conduct informs numerous doctrines. See, e.g., United States e rel. Accardi v. ShaughnessySearch
-
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assn. v. StateSearch
-
Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. WichitaSearch
-
Prellwitz v. BergSearch
-
Cottle v. WainwrightSearch
-
and procedurally, are defined by the Due Process Clause, not by state law. See Cleveland Bd. of Education v. LoudermillSearch
-
This finding of historical fact is subject to the rule of Sumner v. MataSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Black v. RomanoSearch
-
Bearden v. GeorgiaSearch
-
and Gagnon v. ScarpelliSearch
-
Cf. Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
Cf. Douglas v. BuderSearch
-
Moore v. StampsSearch
-
Cf. Townsend v. SainSearch
-
Williams v. IllinoisSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial