TROTZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF TROTZ
v.
LAWRUK ET AL., T/A PENN ALTO HOTEL
TROTZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF TROTZ
LAWRUK ET AL., T/A PENN ALTO HOTEL
487 U.S. 1220
Supreme Court of the United States (1988)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dell'orfano v. Romano, 962 F.2d 199 (2d Cir. 1992)…alysis would have been to examine whether Dell’Orfano’s placement in administrative segregation deprived him of a protected liberty interest, and, if so, what process was due him. See Matiyn v. Henderson, 841 F. 2d 31, 33-34 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1220, 108 S.Ct. 2876, 101 L.Ed.2d 911 (1988). We note that, generally, confinement imposed for administrative reasons does not implicate a liberty interest. Russell v. Coughlin, 910 F. 2d 75, 77 (2d Cir.1990). “However, where the state by statute or reg…