BATTLE
v.
NORTH CAROLINA
BATTLE
NORTH CAROLINA
487 U.S. 1220
Supreme Court of the United States (1988)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wallace v. Robinson, 940 F.2d 243 (7th Cir. 1991)…reat body of precedent on this subject. See Gilbert v. Frazier, 931 F. 2d 1581 (7th Cir.1991); Solomon v. Zant, 888 F. 2d 1579 (11th Cir.1989); Rust v. Grammer, 858 F. 2d 411 (8th Cir.1988); Matiyn v. Henderson, 841 F. 2d 31 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1220, 108 S.Ct. 2876, 101 L.Ed.2d 911 (1988); Sheley v. Dugger, 833 F. 2d 1420 (11th Cir.1987); Sher v. Coughlin, 739 F. 2d 77; Parker v. Cook, 642 F. 2d 865 (5th Cir.1981); Baptist v. O’Leary, 742 F.Supp. 975 (N.D.Ill.1990); Frankenberry v. Williams, 67…
-
Russell v. Coughlin, 910 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990)…e have recognized that it may not be apparent, merely from an analysis of state regulations under the Helms standard, whether the regulations create a liberty interest. For example in Matiyn v. Henderson, 841 F. 2d 31, 34-36 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1220, 108 S.Ct. 2876, 101 L.Ed.2d 911 (1988), we ex [*79] amined New York’s regulations governing protective admissions and concluded that, under Helms, these regulations created a protected liberty interest. Nevertheless, we sustained a claim of qualifi…