Cootz v. State
Idaho Supreme Court
1Concurrence
BISTLINE, Justice,
specially concurring.
The opinion authored by Justice Johnson has gained my concurrence because it is well-substantiated in holding that Cootz is at the least entitled to some due process. My only purpose in writing additionally is to observe that competent authority suggests that an inmate is entitled to more rights and a greater degree of dignity than seems to be the present norm.
Justice Johnson moves the Court in a doubtful direction when he writes that:
In Hill1 the Court dealt with the revocation of good time credits. Here, we deal with disciplinary detention. We do not…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Meachum v. FanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Bryant v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional ServicesCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1976
- Greene v. Secretary of Public Safety & Correctional ServicesCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1986