Legal Opinion

Nelson v. Commissioner of Correction

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 10, 1983PublishedCited by 78 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLiacos, J.

This case, and three accompanying cases presented by other plaintiffs, raise questions as to the constitutionality of procedures prescribed by State regulations for State prison disciplinary hearings. 2 The plaintiffs, Russell Nelson and Frank Goldman, 3 filed a combined pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs contend that their “constitutional right to due process in a prison disciplinary board hearing” 4 was vio lated in a hearing in which the disciplinary board (board) of the Department of Correction relied solely on informant hearsay information…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Hewitt v. HelmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Meachum v. FanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Roviaro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957

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

3Cited by78 opinions

  1. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Longval v. Commissioner of CorrectionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
  3. Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District Commonwealth v. RoberioMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2015
  4. Massachusetts Federation of Teachers v. Board of EducationMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
  5. Doe v. Sex Offender Registry BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2011

73 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