Legal Opinion

Borden v. Hofmann

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 13, 2009No. 2006-345PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSkoglund, J.

¶ 1. This case requires us to determine whether placing an inmate on a Nutraloaf-and-water diet in response to misconduct constitutes “punishment” within the meaning of 28 V.S.A. § 851, thereby requiring a hearing prior to implementation of the diet under § 852. This case does not present the question of whether the imposition of such a diet is cruel and unusual punishment, or even whether its substitution for standard prison fare is a deprivation significant enough to trigger the protection of constitutional due process guarantees. Nor does this case challenge the imposition of a…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Samuel Lemaire v. Manfred Maass, Superintendent, Samuel Lemaire v. Manfred Maass, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
  4. Landman v. RoysterDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1971
  5. Green v. FerrellCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. In Re Soon KwonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2011
  2. In re North East Materials Group, LLC/Rock of Ages Corp. Act 250 Permit (Russell Austin, Pamela Austin, Julie Barre, Marc Bernier, Collectively, Neighbors for Healthy Communities, Appellants)Supreme Court of Vermont · 2019
  3. Zachary Rose v. Michael Touchette, Commissioner, Department of CorrectionsSupreme Court of Vermont · 2021
  4. Badgley v. WaltonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2010
  5. Badgley v. WaltonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2010

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