Cornelius E. Sarzen v. Charles W. Gaughan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that due process requires, prior to a sixty-day observational commitment, an opportunity for the inmate to review and object to the record which psychiatrists use in evaluating whether he is sexually dangerous
• explaining that stare decisis requires lower courts to take binding pronouncements “at face value until formally altered”
• “When a ..federal court has spoken, stability and stare decisis require that litigants and other courts take its pronouncement at face value until formally altered.”
• “when the highest state court has addressed itself to the issue raised ... the exhaustion doctrine does not require a petitioner to present his claim in state court”
• district courts must take binding pronouncements “at face value until formally altered”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).