Neese v. Utah Bd. of Pardons & Parole
Utah Supreme Court
Chief Justice Durrant filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the result.
1Opinion of the Court
Associate Chief Justice Lee filed a dissenting opinion.
On Certification from the Utah Court of Appeals
Justice Himonas, opinion of the Court:
INTRODUCTION
¶ 1 Michael Neese, a Utah prison inmate, has never been convicted of a sex offense, subjected to prison discipline for sexual misconduct, or otherwise adjudicated a sexual offender. Yet the Board of Pardons and Parole (Parole Board) has denied him an original release date for parole largely based on its determination that he's a sex offender and his refusal to participate in sex offender treatment. Applying the principles we articulated in…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited72 opinions
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Douglas v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Williams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- State v. WilderUtah Supreme Court · 2018
- Rutherford v. Talisker Canyons Fin., Co.Utah Supreme Court · 2019
- State v. LeggUtah Supreme Court · 2018
- Richards v. CoxUtah Supreme Court · 2019
- Pirtle v. Legis. CouncilNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2021
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.