翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Superintendent (construction) ・ Superintendent (ecclesiastical) ・ Superintendent (education) ・ Superintendent (jail) ・ Superintendent (New Zealand) ・ Superintendent (police) ・ Superintendent Battle ・ Superintendent of Bankruptcy ・ Superintendent of Finance of the United States ・ Superintendent of Finances ・ Superintendent of police (India) ・ Superintendent of Public Instruction of Wisconsin ・ Superintendent of School Buildings, New York City ・ Superintendent of the United States Military Academy ・ Superintendent registrar ・ Superintendent v. Hill ・ Superintendent's House (Sumpter, Oregon) ・ Superintendent's Residence ・ Superintendent's Residence at the Utah State Hospital ・ Superintendent's Residence, Great Sand Dunes National Monument ・ Superintending Surveyor ・ Superintendência do Desenvolvimento da Amazônia ・ Superinteressante ・ Superion ・ Superionic water ・ Superior ・ Superior (album) ・ Superior (band) ・ Superior (bus manufacturer) ・ Superior (comics) Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Superintendent v. Hill ： ウィキペディア英語版 Superintendent v. Hill ''Superintendent v. Hill'', , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that due process required that prison disciplinary decisions to revoke good-time credits must be supported by "some evidence." == Background == Hill and Crawford were inmates at Massachusetts Correctional Institution - Cedar Junction, a state prison in Walpole, Massachusetts. After being involved in a fight with a third inmate, they were charged with assaulting that inmate, in violation of prison rules. At separate hearings, Sergeant Maguire testified about the events he witnessed that suggested Hill and Crawford were involved in the fight. Hill and Crawford declared their innocence, and the victim gave statements that Hill and Crawford did not cause his injuries. The prison disciplinary board found Hill and Crawford guilty of violating prison rules. It took away 100 days of good-time credit and 15 days' solitary confinement. Hill and Crawford appealed to the prison superintendent, but the superintendent denied their appeal. They then filed a complaint in Massachusetts Superior Court, claiming that the board's actions violated their constitutional rights because there was "no evidence to confirm that the incident took place nor was there any evidence to state that if the incident took place (and Crawford ) were involved". The Superior Court concluded that there was no constitutionally sufficient evidence to support the board's finding, and ordered the prison system to void the disciplinary orders and restore Hill's and Crawford's good-time credits. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. The accumulation of good-time credits was a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which required judicial review of the board's findings. The court agreed that there was not even "some evidence" to support the board's findings that Hill and Crawford were responsible for the assault. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision, and it agreed to do so. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Superintendent v. Hill」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.