In re the Personal Restraint of Gronquist
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Tat,madge, J.
— We are asked to determine if an inmate who is disciplined by the Department of Corrections (Department), pursuant to a regulation making it a serious infraction if the inmate commits four underlying minor *391infractions within a specified period, may relitigate those minor infractions in the hearing on the serious infraction. We hold the inmate may not relitigate the underlying infractions and, therefore, we reverse the Court of Appeals and deny the personal restraint petition (PRP) of Derek E. Gronquist.
ISSUE
Was Gronquist entitled to relitigate the validity of the four general…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Turner v. SafleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Igal v. Brightstar Information Technology Group, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. DhaliwalWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- In re the Personal Restraint of GranthamWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- In Re GranthamWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- In Re Personal Restraint of GronquistWashington Supreme Court · 1999
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.