Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Personal Restraint of Gronquist

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1999No. 66271-1Published

1DissentSanders, J.

(dissenting) — Although the majority acknowledges Gronquist’s due process entitlement includes the right to call witnesses at a serious infraction hearing,14 Majority at 397-98 and 400, it ultimately subverts that right by allowing an accumulation of underlying minor infractions to obscure the serious consequence of a serious infraction which brings with it greater procedural entitlements. I would therefore affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision that Gronquist has been unconstitutionally deprived his liberty interest in good time credits absent that process constitutionally due, contrary to…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  3. Dent v. West VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  4. Reninger v. State Dept. of CorrectionsWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Reninger v. Department of CorrectionsWashington Supreme Court · 1998

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API