Eddie Griffin v. John Spratt and J. Kevin Kane

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that inmate’s prison disciplinary conviction for possessing intoxicating beverage was supported by some evidence when only evidence was conduct report and correctional officer’s opinion that beverage had fermented
• “[Prisoner] had no [due process] right to have the beverages found in his cell preserved until the disciplinary hearing”
• “Identification of a controlled substance does not require direct evidence if available circumstantial evidence establishes its identity beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quoting United States v. Harrell, 737 F.2d 971, 978 (11th Cir. 1984))
• reliance on hearsay permissible in a prison disciplinary proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).