Hertz v. Moses

823 P.2d 1247, 1992 Alas. LEXIS 4, 1992 WL 6872
CourtAlaska Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 17, 1992
DocketNo. S-4250
StatusPublished

This text of 823 P.2d 1247 (Hertz v. Moses) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alaska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hertz v. Moses, 823 P.2d 1247, 1992 Alas. LEXIS 4, 1992 WL 6872 (Ala. 1992).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The failure to denote the incident report as either disciplinary or informational did not violate appellant’s due process rights as he had adequate notice of the disciplinary hearing. Similarly, the failure to call Mr. Easter to testify as to why the incident report was not so denoted was not a due process violation because Easter’s testimony on this point was irrelevant to any substantive issue. The failure of the appellees to record the deliberations of the prisoner disciplinary committee is not a violation of due process.

The other points raised by Hertz are unreviewable as they do not allege an abridgement of fundamental constitutional rights. Department of Corrections v. Kraus, 759 P.2d 539, 540 (Alaska 1988).

For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Department of Corrections v. Kraus
759 P.2d 539 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
823 P.2d 1247, 1992 Alas. LEXIS 4, 1992 WL 6872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hertz-v-moses-alaska-1992.