Legal Opinion

In re the Personal Restraint of Krier

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 20, 2001No. 45490-1-IPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKennedy, J.

Due process requires fair notice of what conduct is prohibited before an inmate charged with a serious infraction can be deprived of good time in a prison disciplinary proceeding. Where an inmate claims lack of fair notice and is nevertheless found guilty of committing a serious infraction, “some evidence” in the record of the hearing must support a finding that the inmate did receive fair notice of the prohibited conduct, despite his protests to the contrary. Where such evidence cannot be found in the record, it cannot be supplied post hoc, during judicial review. Accordingly, we grant S.J.…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Bouie v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Ponte v. RealSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Department of Corrections v. GoulsbyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  2. In Re GoulsbyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  3. In Re HigginsWashington Supreme Court · 2004
  4. In re the Personal Restraint of LelandCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
  5. Nelson v. HaydenIdaho Court of Appeals · 2003

4 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