AHMAD J. SMITH, PETITIONER,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Robert E. Banks v. Jones, 197 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
  …S. at 223, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (concluding that “assignment to [Supermax prison] imposes an atypical and significant hardship under any plausible baseline”). And, indeed, we’ve applied it a number of timés and found it workable. See, e.g., John v. Crews, 149 So. 3d 149, 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“Based on Sandin, appellant’s placement in disciplinary confinement for forty-three days did not present an atypical, signifi [*1179] cant deprivation implicating the protections of the due process clause”). Simply said, n…

  ← 1 / 4 →
• Gardener v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 178 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
  …L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), Plymel v. Moore, 770 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and Williams v. Tucker, 87 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), was correct and supported the circuit court’s holding that no liberty interest was involved. See also John v. Crews, 149 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (disciplinary confinement did not implicate due process liberty interest). [*95] In an abundance of caution, the circuit court found that even if a liberty interest had been involved, the agency’s disciplinary proceedings comport…
• Santibenez v. Dixon (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)

Authorities Cited

• Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)