Legal Opinion

Stoneham v. Rushen

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 24, 1982No. Civ. 53017PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RACANELLI, P. J.

This appeal arises against the following background: Under the provisions of the Penal Code (to which all statutory references apply unless otherwise noted) the Director of Corrections (Director), as manager of the state prison system, is charged with the responsibility for the “care, custody, treatment, training, discipline and employment” of all prisoners (§ 5054). Upon arrival at a state prison facility, an inmate is required to undergo an examination of his personal background which thereafter serves as a basis of the Director’s decision to “classify [the prisoner]…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Armistead v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Regents of University of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Cecil v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  4. Bonestell, Richardson & Co. v. CurryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Ligon v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Grier v. KizerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
  2. California School Boards Ass'n v. State Board of EducationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. McCarthy v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
  4. Hillery v. RushenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
  5. Morales v. California Department of Corrections & RehabilitationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008

9 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